User talk:TParis/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions with User:TParis. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

I think you want your Chelsea/Bradley reversion consistent here (i.e. the first Chelsea should be a Bradley) - or is the problem in my brain (would be no surprise, I'm 5 timezones from home with 24h non-stop travel time ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:38, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you meant "Bradley". StAnselm (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

My bad, thanks for the heads up!--v/r - TP 13:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts on an ArbCom case. I think it is sorely needed -- I and several (many?) others feel that some admins have abused their privileges. It feels a bit like peasants vs. the monarchy, as some have analogized. As I have stated throughout and as the ArbCom case should work, my problem at the core is with admin excesses rather than with any actual content debate.

I liked the statement on your user page:

"The problem with the world, as I see it, is that everyone views it as a battleground. Advocates are the warriors in that battleground. I like a little more sensibility and respect for opponents."

Although these frustrations can fry a person's patience I appreciate your level head and commitment to being reasonable. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I definitely seen an Arbcom case coming. The difficulty will be separating the "ends" from the "means." In fact, I think if we were to separate the ends from the means in the RFC, consensus would actually lean toward remaining at Chelsea. It is probable that had the admins involved not done what they did, an RFC on the move would've resulted in "Move to Chelsea." Unfortunately, we are left with what we have. So as I was saying, if we separate the ends from the means, we can see that in the means lies an, I say with some reservation, abuse of the community's trust and a violation of two policies. I believe at least one administrator stands to lose their tools over the matter, no matter how good intentioned. We'll see. Unfortunately that talk page reeks of advocates (on both sides) thus turning me into an anti-advocacy advocate.--v/r - TP 18:20, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the anti-advocacy advocacy -- I feel the same way. That's a good way to put it. I'm finding myself in one breath denouncing transphobia while in the next denouncing denouncements of transphobia. It's quite ironic. Really, neither transphobia nor accusations thereof should factor into a policy discussion. In terms of "who started it" it's really the fault of those with transphobic rationales, but then again "you started it" has never been an acceptable justification. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Also supplementing your comments, which I completely agree with, the degree that a comment becomes transphobic as well. I find that many advocates believe their particular cause is above humor. I worked on an article awhile back called Save the tatas and surprisingly they've been criticized for making humor of breast cancer even though they are a breast cancer awareness group. People need more humor and less offense in their lives.--v/r - TP 20:28, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

TP, I'm also considering action against the admin(s) involved in that fiasco. I believe several question marks have been raised over their suitability to be sysop(s) both because of their decision making in moving/locking the page but also very troubling civility problems afterwards. I've posted some thoughts here. Email me if you want to discuss it in more detail. I don't want to add further to the drama on site until after the 29th. --RA (✍) 01:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

I'll email you.--v/r - TP 01:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Just curious — will this have any effect on those of us who aren't blocked and who don't/haven't had access to UTRS? Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps. If the migration doesn't go as planned, there could be an influx of unblock requests on-wiki, at BASC, or on the mailing list.--v/r - TP 22:08, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey TParis - I left a follow-up question for you regarding UTRS #8586. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I replied, thanks.--v/r - TP 20:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

- seems to have gone haywire. It's looks as if it's not loading the CSS or something, but all the horizontal barcharts are missing too. This may be something to do with the glitches that were caused by the recent https default. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a link?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I suspect it's his browser not allowing cross-protocol content. We should make all links protocol-independent.--v/r - TP 14:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I already did. Works for me on a non-allowing cross-protocol browser. Try purging your cache.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Tried that already, still not displaying correctly. Using Ffox 23.0.1 on MacOS 10.8.4. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Which edit counter? Can you provide a link?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:25, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

This. The horizontal coloured bars that display the edit types are not displaying. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

We can notice than it's working on the labs and enough quicker. JackPotte (talk) 10:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Try using the labs version. That's the one being maintained.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, yes it's very fast. Perhaps it should be set as the default counter. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Not today because we must resolve this problem before. JackPotte (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

My talk - David Gerard (talk) 15:22, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You said this:

We can look to User:David Gerard for a great example of how to explain that a comment is transphobic, hateful, or ignorant.[1]

Which is a sideswipe at me. You called me "transphobic, hateful or ignorant". I am none of the above. I am also a named living person, and unless you have evidence to back up your assertions, you should strike that. It may not have been your intention, but you criticized me in a public forum without notifying me so I could respond. Moreover, it was a low blow to attack my reputation after I had already struck part of the underlying comment,[2] after David explained that he was troubled by it. David was courteous. I was courteous. Were you?

Could you trim your statement? There directions request 500 words maximimum. An arbitration request is not the place to lay out a bunch of evidence. I think you need to focus on explaining why arbitration is needed if you want to succeed with the request.

Know that I like to speak plainly. Once this matter is resolved between us, I will quickly forget about it. Jehochman ^Talk 01:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

There was no reason to approach me so aggressively. If you've paid attention to my comments during this dispute, I've said several times that editors can make comments in good faith that someone may be able to find offensive. I even said so again in the Arbcom case: "The accusations of misconduct - which took little regard for good faith, ... devestate the ability of the encyclopedia to communicate..." David Gerard approached exactly that and offered a much kinder response than others have to the same kind of good faith comments all over the RFC. I've called you none of those things. As for my request, what is the etiquette after an Arbcom case has been replied to? WP:REDACT says "It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise responded to your statement" and I'm wondering if it applies doubly to Arbcom.--v/r - TP

I see my error. I'm sorry.--v/r - TP 01:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I like your edit and it makes your point even stronger. Jehochman ^Talk 05:20, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Will the Autoedits, Edit summary counter & Top namespace edits also migrated to the Wikimedia Labs? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:15, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Eventually, yes. Cyberpower has sorta taken the lead on this, I'm more focused on the UTRS project.--v/r - TP 19:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey TParis,

Would you be able to do me a favour and reduce the word count of your request to below 700 words? The amount of quotations is a very excessive. Rather than wholly quoting, you should summarize and link to the diff or simply put them in expandable sections like you have previously. Would be really appreciated.

Thanks :)

Seddon ^talk 19:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh and in case you want to know how the 700 is being calculated, copy and paste your section from the rendered section here: http://www.javascriptkit.com/script/script2/countwords.shtml. Don't use the raw text cause that would include all of the stuff in the sections (which brings it to well in excess of 2000 words). Seddon ^talk 19:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Done.--v/r - TP 23:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi TP

I was surprised by your comment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case, in which you said "I would ask the committee to show how the article's title has caused actual, not perceived, harm to the subject".

That approach demolishes our BLP policy, because it requires us to do nothing to protect a living person until we have evidence that harm has already been done. The whole thrust of WP:BLP is precautionary: to proactively avoid damage, rather than to desist after the harm has been done.

BL says The idea expressed in WP:Eventualism – that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape – does not apply to biographies. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

I know that you and I take a different view about what is fair here, but that's a separate issue. Whatever measure of fairness is adopted, we don't wait until we have already screwed up someone's life before being fair. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. If it weren't for the unique case where the subject has specifically addressed this issue, I don't think we'd dispute how applicable WP:BLP actually is.--v/r - TP 00:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has passed a temporary injunction in the case in which you are a party to. The full text of the injunction follows:

The articles "Bradley Manning", "United States v. Manning", and "Chelsea Manning gender identity media coverage" are placed under standard discretionary sanctions for the duration of the case. Unless otherwise provided for in the final decision, any sanction imposed pursuant to this injunction will automatically lapse upon the closure of the case.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 23:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Just letting you know that I responded to your question at User talk:Zyxw#Nav Popups. -- Zyxw (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I made a very minor edit to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute#Statement by TParis - I inserted a space between two words. Feel free to revert if you wish. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I undid my change. There are other sections by other authors that also have missing spaces. It would be best to either fix them all or not fix any, or let the individual authors make the fixes. Not wanting to step on the arbcom's toes I'm not going to fix them all unless it's clear that such clerical edits to this page are okay. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:35, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I appreciate the thought anyway =).--v/r - TP 00:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, these missing spaces appear to be an artifact of the "verbatim copying" from this revision of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case. In the revision I just linked to, your comment has the proper spacing. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:49, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to 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/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 23, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon ^talk 10:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi TParis - Is the UTRS migration to Wikimedia Labs complete? The interface is really messy right now, especially when you zoom in on an appeal.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 19:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not related to what I'm doing, but I've fixed it.--v/r - TP 22:15, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Cheers!--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi TParis, please excuse me if I'm not following proper procedure and/or formatting with this post. I am brand new to having a Wiki account and hope I'm doing this right.

I'm posting about a deleted page, about the folklore behind a now defunct indie band called Lifter Puller. It looks as if the deletion of the page was correct according to the Wiki's rules against original content. I was wonder if there's a way for me to see the information though. It simply doesn't exist anywhere anymore and I've become rather infatuated with the band and the investigating the depth of the stories the lyrics tell has become a bit of an obsession.

Could you possibly provide this information? Thanks ten million in advance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifter_Puller_Folklore — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEYtheNICK (talk • contribs) 00:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I emailed the last revision to you.--v/r - TP 00:31, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Just for the record, since the proposed decisions (and the final decisions) use diffs in findings of fact and the such, it is more beneficial to reproduce the diff alongside your proposed FoFs. (This also reduces the chance that things are overlooked.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:10, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Ohh, I see, I wasn't aware. I haven't ever participated in a case before.--v/r - TP 13:32, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Wifione ^Message 18:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

On 15 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dennis Lo, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in 2011, Yuk-Ming Dennis Lo developed a non-invasive prenatal diagnosis method for detecting Down syndrome using maternal blood plasma? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dennis Lo. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 17:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Can you please look at what sceptre did on this page? This is exactly one of the chief issues in the arbitration case.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is very little I can do. I can't voice an opinion, now, because that would give the appearance of canvassing. And I certainly cannot take action against Sceptre, their involvement in the Arbcom case would give the appearance I am involved, though it might be a stretch but I don't care to try. If I were you, I'd take it up with User:SarekOfVulcan as I believe that Sceptre's topic ban would cover exactly this. Alternatively, you could try talking to Sceptre first, which would be a show of good faith, before trying to bring the hammer down on them. I think people react irrationally sometimes when their emotions get ignited and once they calm down, folks are very likely to realize their mistakes and apologize when politely pointed out. Sorry I can't help. P.S. Thanks for standing up for me on the Workshop.--v/r - TP 01:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I was asking you to comment, not do anything. Sorry. I was a little ticked off between him and another on that page running wild. Maybe I'll ask Sarek later after i cool down. Regarding the workshop, I've had the misfortune to read a lot of motions and filings recently. Suffice it to say I can now tell when a lawyer is blowing smoke out of his ass.Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:05, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		For your continuing efforts to keep the community together when two of our pillars conflict. Please continue to put out fires and build bridges instead of walls. --GRuban (talk) 14:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope we all come out of this thing with a better perspective than we went into it.--v/r - TP 14:27, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're right - I confused Evidence with Workshop. The problem is that we're looking at a group that suffers from discrimination. The messages I linked that you object to are ones denying the group exists, and thus denying that the group has any rights, since they don't exist. Now, note I'm not calling for all users who make such comments to necessarily be sanctioned or anything like that, but such comments surely must count as evidence of prejudice against the group being displayed on Wikipedia, which is, if you look at the Workshop page, how my evidence is being used. I can't see how your conclusions about my evidence follow from my statements, particularly as I set out exactly which criteria I was using to judge the statements. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 15:46, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

I believe that disagreeing with trans* issues and not accepting trans* are still political issues. Heck, they could even be religious issues for some people which also falls under the non-discriminatory policy. For #2, the comment doesn't even remotely suggest that transgender folks don't exist. It simply states that there seems to be an effort to wipe all mention off of the article that Chelsea was/is physically/is legally or otherwise a male by those definitions. For example, they are critizing the removal of something even like: "Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley Manning...." Number 7, as a military member myself, I rather object to your claim that we're extremely prejudice. I'm offended but I'll let it go. However, the quotes imply they came from a RS. It is not an illegitimate opinion that if a source says that Chelsea will not get the medical treatment needed to complete her transformation that we should not call her by female pronouns and names. It's misinformed of transgender issues, I'll give you that as I'm am rather uninformed myself and hadn't known this before the case started, but it's not transphobic. It's a legitimate, non-hateful or fear-ful, assumption for determining this case. #5 I included in my "with the exception of". #1 - I can see your point in that he said "in every meaningful sense" so I retract my defense of that one. Her identity is meaningful. #3 I also think is based in a legitimate, although misinformed, opinion. Legal and biological definitions are different ways to consider someone's gender. #4, I can't see the specific transphobic words, but I can accept that "Oh my God, I don't believe this title move" sets a negative and hurtful tone because it belittle's the legitimacy of the discussion (which is based on her declaration of her identity). So, there you have it.--v/r - TP 16:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

To start off, I don't mean to imply the military as a whole is transphobic, just that if the military is directly discriminating against a trans person by refusing them treatment, using that discrimination as a justification for declaring the person not their desired gender is directly buying into the prejudice.

So, let's deal with the remainder. The bit in #2 I find disturbing is "...radical political advocacy (which advocacy is the sole reason Manning's article keeps being mangled to describe him as Anything-But-Male" - words like "mangled" and declaring that identifying a trans person as their gender can only be a form of "radical political advocacy" seem incredibly hostile to me.

As for #3, I can accept that one's a bit borderline, and will remove it at the end of this discussion (it'll renumber everything else, so I shan't yet) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The military follows the letter of the law, plain and simple. We don't get involved in politics, we don't advocate anything, or push any sort of change. We simple do as we're told by the law. We can't be prejudice, only the law can be prejudice and the politicians who make them. Even Don't Ask, Don't Tell isn't a construct of the military. The Defense of Marriage act also isn't a construct of the military. Whether the law is right or wrong, the only place for a military in a civilian-led democracy is under the law. In fact, we sign a contract stating that we will not protest or otherwise attend politically motivate gatherings while in uniform. Because I use a picture of me in uniform on my userpage, I felt that constituted "in uniform" enough that I had to place a disclaimer saying that I don't speak on behalf of the government or military.

I think the use of mangled is in reference to the article and radical political advocacy is about the folks actually advocating on the talk page. I'd say the case of advocacy on that talk page is about as strong as the case of transphobia. There are instances of it, but we'd disagree on how much and what to do about it.

I appreciate your willingness to discuss this, it's been tough to find people to build bridges with.--v/r - TP 17:39, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The idea that the military is apolitical—especially on this issue—is idealistic rather than realistic. In fact, don't-ask-don't-tell was a compromise driven in large part by military advocacy; President Clinton had proposed lifting the ban on gays in the military entirely, but encountered intense pushback from military leadership ([3]). DADT was enacted as the resulting compromise—it very literally owes its existence to political advocacy by the military.

The commandant of the Marine Corps was a particularly outspoken advocate on the topic. He circulated a paper by the Corps chaplain arguing that "Legislators and military leaders have a legitimate role to play in checking the spread of homosexual behavior, especially among young people whose minds and characters are in formative stages." ([4]) That's political advocacy. Hell, he went so far as to write a newspaper op-ed—the canonical form of political advocacy—making the case that admitting gays to the military would be risky, and threatening mass resignations in the officer corps if the ban were lifted. (Of course, this is the same Marine Corps commandant who had a habit of claiming that minority officers couldn't swim, shoot, or read a compass as well as white officers, but the point stands). The military played a central political role in the development of policy on this issue, and DADT is very much a construct of the military. MastCell ^Talk 19:54, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Advocacy by pro-military groups is not advocacy by the military. And in the case of the Gen, he shouldn't have made those remarks. Our role isn't advocacy or politics and President Clinton should've politely asked the Gen to keep his opinion to himself. But you can't point out single instances and then say that the Military advocates. That was a General who should've known after 30 years that his job wasn't to be a politician. We simply do not have the power to affect the members of congress. It's our role to do what we're told by Washington and we're obligated to follow the law.--v/r - TP 20:11, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

(I swear I don't mean to pile on; I just happened across this through tpsing, and it's a pretty interesting conversation.) How are you defining "the Military"? You seem to be defining it as separate from its members. But what is a military if not the sum of its parts? Obviously, there's some distinction between the actions of the military as a whole and the actions of a single member of it. But when that member is in a position of high authority, and uses that authority to spread the influence of their actions throughout the entire organization, does that distinction still hold up? I don't really think it does.

Another way of thinking about it: you're obligated to follow the law, yes. You're also obligated to follow your superior's orders. What if the orders are prejudicially motivated? A prejudicial/politically-motivated order from a general officer could (would?) filter down and color the entire military. How, then, can one say that the military as an organization is apolitical and non-prejudicial if it might have been built on orders that are themselves prejudicial and political? For a concrete example, look at racial segregation in the US military (as it was prior to 1948). The entire organization of the military was designed around the segregation of blacks and whites, and discrimination against blacks (separate units for blacks, which were still commanded by white officers, etc.) How could that not make the military itself, as an organization, prejudicial? Obviously, that's no longer true as far as segregation goes, but t it does illustrate that the military can be--and indeed has been--prejudicial and political. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

The same way that Wikipedia is supposed to follow the news and not make the news. The military is only as prejudicial as the law deems it. When Generals, other officers, or NCOs give orders that are prejudicial, per the oath that we take, we're bound to follow the lawful orders given to us. Such a prejudicial order should be addressed to a higher authority or the IG.--v/r - TP 20:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• I also feel at this time I should repeat the disclaimer on my user page: I don't speak on behalf of the US Government, US Military, or anyone in my chain of command, nor my fellow members. I speak only on behalf of myself.--v/r - TP 20:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

If prejudicial orders are still considered lawful, then that is institutionalized prejudice. You can't have your cake and eat it too. If you are bound to follow prejudicial orders (that is, orders that are prejudicial are still considered lawful and in force), then the organization itself is prejudicial, since it allows that. If the prejudicial orders of superior officers are purely their own prejudice, and not a reflection of prejudice in the institution, then they wouldn't be lawful orders. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:48, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Of course the military is bound by the law. That doesn't preclude them from playing a role in shaping the law, as they did with DADT. The military leadership lobbied both publicly and privately against a political initiative to lift the ban on gay servicemembers. They were not bound by law to lobby against the proposed change, nor (according to the ideal of an apolitical military) should they have played any role at all in the political dialog on the issue. But they did. (BTW, I don't want to get you in trouble; if you'd rather I stop posting or drop this line of discussion, just let me know). MastCell ^Talk 20:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

You mistook what I said. I said we have to follow all lawful orders. Orders that are discriminatory based on race, sex, religion, sexual orientation, and a host of other unlawful things should be taken to a higher authority or the IG. If the law itself is prejudicial, then there is no recourse for military members, citizens must petition their representatives to get the law changed.--v/r - TP 20:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello, TParis. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Manning naming dispute Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, currently at 1000 words and 100 diffs for parties and 500 words and 50 diffs for all others, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 1213 words and 21 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (who are listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 04:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

The second one doesn't make sense unless you've read the first one pbp 16:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Nothing like some off-wiki canvassing to stir the pot! Joefromrandb (talk) 17:14, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Joe, you have now responded to every single community noticeboard comment I have made in the last 48 hours. It is blatently clear that you are monitoring my user contributions and are following me around wherever I go. This needs to stop immediately. Failure to do so may result in a block or other sanctions against you. pbp 17:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Damn straight I have, as they're all about me and they're all bullshit. Now you're trying to go off-wiki and get a known enemy of mine to conspire with you. And yes, it needs to stop. You were doing fine for almost a month. Just stop fucking with me. It's really that simple. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You need to stop using profanity. The first comment is about the RfC that will shortly be drawn to a close with the finding, among others, that you need to stop using profanity. You have indicated no willingness to stop the behaviors that started the RfC in the first place, and now you hound people who disagree with you. I can comment about whomever I want wherever, provide I do it in the civil tone you refuse to use. And in doing so, I have the expectation that you will not follow me around hither and yon. pbp 18:05, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

If you choose to comment about me, then expect me to respond. And if I'm moved to say the word "fuck", I'll do so. Joefromrandb (talk) 18:12, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

PBP - I havent checked my email yet, but Joe is right, we don't get along. I'm unlikely to do much. Joe - You're not doing yourself any favors. Take a break.--v/r - TP 18:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, the discussion was closed, and I heartily disapprove of User:NE Ent's closure of "inactivity" without trying to analyze the consensus. There is clear consensus that Joe has acted in the wrong. pbp 20:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

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 looks at the American Civil War

Many Assamese Wikipedia users are using "Soxred93's tools" in their user pages to show the list of the article they have created, It works fine for the user having their username in English, But for those users who have their user names in Assamese script, they get only a blank page in the Soxred93's tools article list. (I am sorry if this is not the proper place to post a bug.) If possible please resolve it. Dipankar Chetia 07:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

On 28 September 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Craig Fugate, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Craig Fugate, director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, uses the Waffle House index to determine the level of aid a disaster area requires? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Craig Fugate. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:04, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

He can do no wrong. I've lost hope in any hope of engaging with him. Everything he does is right and justified, no mistakes are ever made, and it's always someone else's fault.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Ignore him, his delusions are easily proven false. He can write any article he wants, I intend to read it carefully and he will be responsible for whatever he writes about me particularly. Sue gave him a false sense of confidence early in the Arbcom case and when he tried to cash that check, she backed off. He's hurting now. The impartial Arbcom review has found his comments to be wholly unacceptable and his attempt to snatch himself to the crew that only pointed out transphobic comments has failed. Even they avoid the subject of him if not outright condone his actions. Josh is in a sinking ship and right now he'll do whatever he can to drag others down with him. Best thing to do is to ignore him and let him go. He'll be out of this topic area in a week at the most.--v/r - TP 15:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice of the topic ban. I am curious of the process involved in this. Are administrator topic bans normally made with the consensus of several administrators, or is just one administrator needed to establish administrator 'consensus'? SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 17:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It's actually not a consensus of administrators at all. It's the consensus of the discussion after about 24+ hours. I read the discussion involving you and I see a consensus among editors that you've become disruptive in that topic area. An administrator is used to close those types of discussions per WP:RESTRICT and WP:General sanctions. Appealing these is generally done at the same noticeboard after a reasonable period of time (usually no earlier than 3 months) or at the Arbitration Committee.--v/r - TP 18:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the explanation. I wonder the effect of this policy. Doesn't this allow a majority group of editors to gang up on a minority editor holding a minority viewpoint? I am concerned that NPOV policy in the encyclopedia is intended to reflect a balance of major and minor viewpoints, and in this case the major viewpoint group harassed me incessantly (though I admit to rising to the bait, letting my temper get raised, being 'accidentally' compared to a pig, for instance crossed a line.) It seems that Wikipedia can be gamed in this way to tip NPOV balance points by railroading minority viewpoints out of topics through such a topic ban gambit. I get it that this is probably not a question for you to answer, nor do I expect you to care. But I consider that I have been successfully railroaded here by a POV contingent who skillfully implemented such the tactic of "bait, report, seek a ban". Seems like a defect in the Wikipedia system and frankly I find it discouraging to volunteer my time as an editor here trying to improve Wikipedia under these conditions. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 18:55, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The question your asking has been asked before. Yes, it is entirely possible for the system to be gamed, but it's generally agreed that when an issue opens up at ANI, there is a great enough reader base that any issue should be able to receive the attention of uninvolved editors. Does that mean that gaming doesn't happen? No, I've personally commented on issues where I think one party's concerns have been absolutely pushed aside because they are misunderstood. It's valid criticism, but I've yet to see a single case that this was unquestionably true. More often than not, it's left to the discretion of whomever drives by that particular day. ANI, then, becomes a very poor venue for dispute resolution. As a system, and as you've said, it's very discouraging to the people. However, when put into another perspective, say "Our goal is an encyclopedia, editors are second to that" then it becomes a protective measure. Many of the actions we take are indeed unfair, but article stability is most important. It's entirely discouraging, I understand. I've felt it too. Right now, on an unrelated issue, I'm entirely discouraged because the resolution to bring stability to the project is delayed by a process. But the encyclopedia itself is the primary goal. I know it's rough, but that's what we have.

If I were you, I'd try editing non-controversial topics for awhile and show that you're a team player. Wait 6 months and then ease back into editing the areas that interest you with more of a collaborative mindset instead of a "right" mindset. No one's view is neutral, neutrality comes from recognizing the merits of other points of view.--v/r - TP 19:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The concern I have is the effect of systemic editor bias on the encyclopedia, and the policy goal of NPOV. As long as this ANI gambit remains a tool available to groups of POV editors to suppress viewpoints that threaten their POV, all articles are at risk of domination by coalitions of POV aligned editors. This particular coalition has been POV defending this group of articles for at least six years in my observation, so as long as this rule remains in effect, and this coalition persists, my 'topic' ban is not 6 months, it is effectively permanent. This rule is likely also being exploited by dominant coalitions elsewhere in the encyclopedia. So the encyclopedia suffers by this 'topic ban' rule because it enhances the problem of systemic bias here through dominance of POV collations. Ultimately, this degrades the NPOV integrity here at the encyclopedia through the effect of entrenchment of POV coalitions. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 14:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is so large it concurrently contains a liberal and conservative bias, a pro-gun and anti-gun bias, a pro-LGBT and anti-LGBT bias, a pro-abortion and anti-abortion bias, and just about every other polarized issue with the exception of the Holocaust, racism, Scientology, and fringe sciences. You're going to find pockets of it all. Claiming that Wikipedia contains any one of those and not the other is just wrong. But as far as ANI goes, you won't find a more diverse crowd. Your topic ban contained elements of pro and anti-gun editors. It was a pretty bi-partisan decision.--v/r - TP 14:43, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You can claim that, but I doubt you can show evidence it is true. If you can, I would welcome a chance to see such evidence. I have studied this question and found the opposite. A disproportionate ratio of 'pro-gun' people (mostly men, often of 'Libertarian' lean) volunteer to edit here in gun articles. This phenomena has been scientifically studied in the greater political science context, for some reason there is an enthusiasm gap between the 'pro' and the 'anti' POV in context of gun politics. (ISBN 069113832X, Princeton University Press) "Pro" people are fewer in number, but are more enthusiastic (and likely to volunteer to advocate for their political cause on Wikipedia, write letter to Congress or the newspaper, donate to the pro-gun PACs, and be 'single issue' voters, etc..). Anti- are greater in number, but less enthusiastic, and therefore less likely to be devoted enough to volunteer to edit the topic. Systemic editor bias is a huge problem in Wikipedia gun related articles, and the ANI gambit by pro-gun coalitions of editors (as just seen) to POV dominate those article by 'topic banning' editors advocating for neutral points of view makes this encyclopedia worse. SaltyBoatr ^{get wet} 19:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

You edit in a very specific topic area, it's not surprising you'd only get a taste of a single perspective. Try editing elsewhere on Wikipedia.--v/r - TP 19:39, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello. There's a tool pages which I like a lot. And I have a question. Is there any method to get data from it in any other format like txt, json or xml? And, when is it planned to transfer it to Labs? ~Nirvanchik~ ^⊤άλҟ 20:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

It's already transferred. We've discussed a json or serialized array (php) export option before but I've never had the time to seriously consider doing it. I didn't develop these tools and never intended to own them, I only brought them back when they were needed as a host with minor tweaks to keep them running. Cyberpower628 has taken over much of the development, you might ask him.--v/r - TP 16:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the information and link. ~Nirvanchik~ ^⊤άλҟ 17:49, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Are the following ANI edits regarding discretionary sanctions for a firearms page, and a topic/page ban for another editor for firearms pages violtions of Salty's ban? [5] [6] Gaijin42 (talk) 19:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm aware but the topic ban was specific that it applied to articles and article talk pages. However, it is never a good idea to test the limits of a ban or to continue to comment on topic areas that you are under a ban so I will speak with him.--v/r - TP 19:36, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey TP, I was wondering if there was anything wrong per-say about Public Affairs accounts on here, some sort of conflict of interest maybe. I ask because I found this account, 31st Fighter Wing Public Affairs (talk · contribs), the other day when I was looking through the Aviano Air Base article revision history. I wasn't sure what to do but I figure you'd probably know more than anyone else I know. Regards, — -dainomite   02:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Technically it violates our policy on usernames. Usernames must represent single individuals. They cannot represent a group or organization. I always recommend to PAs that they use accounts that represent them and then declare on their user page their official role.--v/r - TP 03:17, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Ahhh okay, thank you. Was there a specific noticeboard or something where I should have "reported" the username? I ask only because there seems to be noticeboards for everything under the sun so I assume so, but the truth is I just haven't taken the time to look for it, heh. — -dainomite   03:25, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes - but. There is a noticeboard, it's called WP:UAA. However, I generally stay away and let someone else handle it. I don't need some Lt Col from PA seeing my userpage and tracking me down with a pissy attitude and no concern for the difference between SSgt me and Wikipedia Admin me. Up to you if you want to do the same, I dont think any harm is done by leaving it be. And generally, the folks at UAA ignore username violations that havent edited in a month.--v/r - TP 12:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Ahh yeah, wouldn't want that needless hassle. I don't blame you for shying away from those cases. I've always debated whether or not to upload a picture of myself from a PD-mil image and stick it on my userpage but in the end I'm just like "meh" I guess, and I don't end up doing it, maybe one day. Although I have uploaded a few photos that I have taken myself. The two mil userboxes I have is enough, at least for now. A friend in my unit found me one day on here. I don't even remember how he came across me either; maybe the same way you stumbled into me, who knows. It was pretty funny to me when he did find me because on our previous deployment I was joking with him about making an article about myself just being a wise-ass and he got all serious and said "you aren't notable enough to warrant an article, it would be deleted". But, back on topic. I see the rule #6 on UAA, dually noted. Regards, — -dainomite   13:31, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Hah! Found another one CJIATF 435 Public Affairs (talk · contribs) However, instead of taking it to UAA I just posted the COI welcome message like User:EatsShootsAndLeaves did to the 31st PA account and bolded the noshare/corpname paragraph. —  dainomite   21:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, some folks are stricter or lighter on names based on if there are spam edits or not.--v/r - TP 21:29, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi TParis, as we talked about on irc, this is me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CSteipp (talk • contribs) 22:57, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Too soon. Jreferee's last edit -- [7]. Give them time to digest the comments on Ayn Rand and their talk page; right now it's ready more clueless than intentionally disruptive, and you should start at WP:AE because the disruption is editing (even though he can only do so because of admin status -- it's still not what I would call an "admin action.") Suggest you revert the filing for now, and continue discussion before proceeding with enforcement venues. NE Ent 23:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you read his talk page? I notified him it was an Arbcom sanction. That should've told him he needed to revert right away. His response was that he wouldn't. This is the next step.--v/r - TP 23:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I support the move to ArbCom. Jreferee already responded on the article talk page, where he took an explicit position on the substance of the article (suggesting his edit was for personal preference, not an attempt to implement any perceived consensus) and then said, "I'm headed out for a bit, but feel free to revise". That's swell for me as the only admin who regularly edits there, all the other editors are locked out of taking that flip advice. And unsurprisingly it's got them a little ticked off. If TParis wasn't requesting action, someone else would be. --RL0919 (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) She's dead, what's the harm in having the Wrong Version while things are explained to them? NE Ent 00:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Because it's not a content issue. If it were, I'd butt out since I'm just the patrolling admin and my job isn't to determine the 'right version'. That's for the regular editors, in the editing sense, on the talk page. It's a 'admin edit warred through full protection' issue which needs to be addressed. WP:PROTECT says, "Pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial or for which there is clear consensus (see above)." This Arbcom motion says that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy...."--v/r - TP 00:09, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I know this is a contentious subject, and am wondering if there are AE restrictions on articles relating to it? And who to report to regarding genocide denial on this issue, as well as a few others in fact. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

There are, it's the case on Eastern Europe. You'll need to report issues to WP:AE. Be very careful, though. Not trying to be patronizing, but we both know that you're actions have been controversial in the past. WP:AE will review the matter in it's entirety and anything they determine sanctions-wise requires Arbcom or community consensus to overturn. It's worse than WP:ANI.--v/r - TP 20:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Just curious about it so far, I am not a fan of genocide denial ) I require a favour, I have been working on an article on Female infanticide, but when I went to move it to mainspace it turns out there was an article on it from 08 which is now a redirect, can you do the move for me please? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:23, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Probably, just let me know.--v/r - TP 13:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Whenever is good for you mate, I am waiting on some books on medieval europe to wrap that section up but I figure apart from the rest of the world needing to be added it is good enough as it stands for mainspace. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

So I went and read over what you're trying to do. If I were you, because you are the sole author of the material you've written it, I'd just copy and paste it over that redirect if I were you. That way, you maintain the history of the rest of the article for attribution in the article it was merged to.--v/r - TP 15:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

A tad annoying, nobody had been bothered to write on this, and it will never by my article, well done for reading it, not pleasant reading is it. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to stop by and say the 1RR restriction for the article was a very good idea. I wish I had thought of it myself! Mark Arsten (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

That's why they pay me the bi...ohh wait.--v/r - TP 23:45, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Typo at WP:ARCA: search for "not undue Arbitration actions" ("not undo"). Johnuniq (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.--v/r - TP 03:03, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi TParis. Would you revise your close of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive254#RfC validity review requested? You wrote "Closure was endorsed as within admin discretion", but I JethroBT (talk · contribs) is not an admin. Maybe insert "RfC closer" in place of "admin"?

Also, would you add a link to the AN discussion at Talk:Ayn Rand#Request for comment: Qualifying "philosopher" in the lead sentence, noting that the close was upheld after a community review? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 10:26, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

1. ADDED BOOKS TO REFERENCES AND YOU DELETED IN 5 MINUTES.Perpetual Income: How-to Generate Cash Flow from Low-End House Investments by Bryan Wittenmyer (Jul 1, 1999)Page 32

Rent Reviews and Variable Rents Hardcover – December 1, 1984 by D.N. Clarke(Author) J.E. Adams (Author) PAGE 38

2.DO YOU HAVE A REASON FOR THIS.

3 ARE YOU WORKING FOR VRBO OR PAID IN THE TRAVEL INDUSTRY.

4.WHY WOULD YOU DELETE THIS THEN WITHOUT CHECKING THE BOOKS.

5.PLEASE FOWARD THIS TO THE RIGHT SECTION TO BE LIVE AGAIN AS THIS WAS UNFAIR.

6. IF NOT UNFAIR GIVE REASON AND YES WE HAD BOOKS REFERENCE US WHEN YOU DELETED IN 5 MINUTESJayfrankauthor (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

7.ALSO THIS IS A LIBRARY AND YES I AM YELLING !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND TELLING EVERYONE .

8.WE BLOCKED YOUR SITE FROM OUR LIBRARY AS AT THIS POINT YOUR SITE LOOKS CORRUPT.

9.I AM INCLUDING A LETTER TO JIMMY WHALES FROM THE SCHOOL

10. I AM A FIGHTER AND THIS WILL NOT JUST GO AWAY. I AM IN FOR THE LONG HAUL AND I TRY TO MAKE A IMPACT ON THE WORLD NOT JUST A YES MAN.(DONT TREAT ME DIFFERENT THEN EVERYONE ELSE.)

10.if you did not do this then forward and be of help NOT A PERSON WHO ABUSES POWER AS MOST HERE ARE.!!!!.

Jayfrankauthor (talk) 10:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Jayfrankauthor (talk) 10:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

When you email Jimmy, be sure to spell it "Wales".--v/r - TP 12:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi TParis. Your user page seems to indicate a good editing background/peer review possibility for a Christianity article. I am thinking of recommending a page upgrade for a GA article to FA article status which may involve looking at one key book if this might be possible for you. It is presently available as a free twenty page preview on Amazon books. The book is the popularly received "Evil and the God of Love." Any possible interest? AutoJellinek (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't feel comfortable reviewing a GA. Sorry.--v/r - TP 20:31, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Hitmonchan (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
2. IFreedom1212 (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
3. Tarc (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
4. Josh Gorand (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed.
5. Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to any transgender topic or individual, broadly construed. He is also topic banned from all pages (including biographies) related to leaks of classified information, broadly construed.
6. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is admonished for acting in a manner incompatible with the community's expectations of administrators (see #David Gerard's use of tools).
7. David Gerard (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from using his administrator permissions (i) on pages relating to transgender people or issues and (ii) in situations involving such pages. This restriction may be first appealed after six months have elapsed, and every six months thereafter.
8. The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology case, not this one.
9. All editors, especially those whose behavior was subject to a finding in this case, are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions on Wikipedia, and to avoid commentary that demeans any other person, intentionally or not.

For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 01:29, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Why are these sanctions not on the page itself. Why am I having to see this on a list to another admin (not that I have anything against this admin. Actually one admin I highly respect) Seems to me that that arbcom case was closed without everything being done correctly. TParis, please feel free to correct me if I am wrong but, there is nothing under sancations when this case was closed and I am officially requesting an explanation as to why this was done and I have to view sanctions as a stalker on an admin's page. What the heck is going on here exactly?--Mark Miller (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

It may be that he's still working, these things take a while to close. ~Charmlet ^-talk- 01:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Um, by "the page", what page do you mean? This one: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning_naming_dispute#Remedies? If you mean the "sanctions" section of the same page, that's empty because it's reserved for sanctions (i.e. blocks/warnings) that happen as a result of the remedies above. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I am also still closing the case. --Rschen7754 01:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Very good point. I shall keep calm and carry on. Thanks!--Mark Miller (talk) 01:54, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad it's finally over. Thanks.--v/r - TP 01:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Frankly...so AM I. good work to all. I know this stuff is not always easy to finish off. I do believe Rschen7754 will do everything needed to close the case. I would like to express my personal gratitude to Rschen7754 for the work they are doing. I know we don't always get along (I am Amadscientist) but I have observed their efforsts and work and feel satisfied that they know well what they are doing. Thanks again folks!--Mark Miller (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)--Mark Miller (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Please advise someone is starting business wars with me on Wikipedia. They put false information about my company and about it's employees here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Seaman_Guard_Ohio. Furthermore you will notice most of the information is about the company when the article is supposed to be about a ship. It's not only inaccurate, but it's not even related to the article! I tried to edit it but they keep changing it back and now they have given me warnings as if I was the perpetrator of this business war! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmartin77 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Dave Dial (talk) 19:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I've replied to you.--v/r - TP 20:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Greetings, mate Tparis. Nice to meet you. I am nos registered on en-wiki, but i am user in es-wiki. Mi username on that wiki is Leonpolanco. I use often your tool of editcount (https://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/). But it is having dificults on es-wiki. It doesn't give the number of edit for the es-wiki, it appears the advice "Leonpolanco no existe" or other advice saying the account doesn't exist, though it exist; or it appears the advice (es.wikipedia.org esta Wiki no es válida). What is ocurring? Might you solutionate it, please? How could I report this dificult?. I let you my email, for your answer: (Redacted). Thanks. --189.202.28.73 (talk) 20:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

My email box has been blowing up most of the day. I believe there is a database error at the moment that is causing the tool to malfunction. Unfortunately, there is nothing I can do.--v/r - TP 20:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, your tool only gives the number of edits for accounts of other wikis, less the es-wiki. --189.202.28.73 (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

You deleted Todd Kincannon in 2011 based on a PROD. It looks like he just turned up again. [8] As a former executive director of the South Carolina Republican Party and the subject of understandable media attention now, I expect an article will be restarted momentarily (indeed I was about to do so when I saw the notice), so I think it would be best to just undelete it in place before there's a second history to deal with. Wnt (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've restored it.--v/r - TP 16:14, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MV Seaman Guard Ohio incident until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:00, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello TParis, I frequently use your tools, and they are very informative. I was curious if it is possible to increase the amount of results for the "Top Namespace Edits" tool (the default being 100). Or if there is another tool that serves the same purpose to find more than 100 results. I have been curious about this for awhile, so I thought might as well go straight to the source. Regards, STATic message me! 03:24, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm having trouble recalling exactly which tool you're talking about, can you give me a link?--v/r - TP 12:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh really? You probably have more tools then you can remember aha. I was refering to this. My mistake for calling it Top Namespace Edits, I had my results for the main namespace bookmarked, so I thought that was the name of the tool. STATic message me! 13:07, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I do not know if you did not see this, but I guess there is not a way to expand the search. STATic message me! 00:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Ohh yeah, sorry. I'm sorry but there is no setting to make that do anymore pages. It's limited to 100 so I don't overtax the database servers.--v/r - TP 00:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh okay, thanks for the explanation. Regards, STATic message me! 16:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You know, I was wondering what v/r stood for in all your posts! Anyhow, wanted to ask you a question about the Titus Andronicus situation. Given that the block on the page is being lifted tomorrow, I posted a question asking what happens next, given that you said three of the images were fine, I assumed those three could be put back. Perhaps I read too much into your post, I don't know. Whatever the case, when I asked the question, Werith responded with "Given the facts that have been established, (the files in question can be replaced, not easily but certainly doable), the files need to stay out of the article for failing WP:NFCC#1." This confuses me. Was there another discussion taking place somewhere? I didn't know any facts had been established. The vast majority of the editors involved in the discussion felt they didn't fail NFCC#1, yourself included. As an admin, I thought your points carried some weight, but was your involvement completely pointless? And also, is there no method of redress regarding a next move. Obviously, I can't just add them back or Werith would remove them, and we'd be back exactly where we started, so I'm wondering what one should do in these circumstances. Thanks very much. Bertaut (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) v/r can stand for "very respectful" or "very respectfully"; I've seen it both ways. It's common at the bottom of emails. Regards, —  dainomite   23:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Really? That's interesting. Is that an American thing? In Ireland, it's (semi) common to sign formal emails with RY ("respectfully yours"), BR ("Best Regards"), or in less formal communications ATB ("All the Best"). Bertaut (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It could very well be an American thing. I never saw it myself until I joined the U.S. Military a few years ago and ever since then almost everyone I've exchanged an email with has had it in their email signature. Regards, —  dainomite   00:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Dainomite is right about v/r. As far as me saying that three of the images are fine, that was only in reference to the AN3 complaint and why I didn't block anyone. My opinion of WP:NFCC is as subject to consensus as anyone else'. Admins don't carry anymore weight, in that regard, but we are required to explain ourselves and there was enough criticism of my decision that an explanation was warranted. So as far as a way forward, you should seek to develop a consensus. I see that Kww and a few of ya'all have begun discussing it. I'd give discussion a few more days and then see if anyone has been convinced of either side. From my vantage point, it seems some folks feel Werieth may have some legitimate concerns and so those should be vetted. However, if discussion stalls, then a WP:NFCR discussion or WP:DSN discussion should be able to get things moving again.--v/r - TP 00:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

There's no way a consensus is going to be reached through discussion on the talk page. Werith is simply too unreasonable and refuses to have his opinion challenged. As I mentioned somewhere in the myriad of discussion, I did plan to file a WP:NFCR before everything blew up. I told Werith I would file one. It's possible that because I didn't do it straight away, he assumed I wasn't going to do it at all, which is not an unreasonable assumption. I planned on doing it the next day, but by that stage many cats had leaped amongst many pigeons. I'll do it tomorrow so. One final (two-part) question though. Given that the images are currently orphans (except the BBC one), don't they run the risk of being deleted before the WP:NFCR has run it's course? Secondly, if the purpose of the WP:NFCR is to determine whether or not the images are legitimate for usage in the article, doesn't it make more sense for them to actually be in the article whilst the discussion is ongoing, so people can see the caption and accompaying text etc rather than just looking at the image in isolation. Apologies if these are foolish questions, but I've never done anything in this area before. Bertaut (talk) 01:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The CSD criteria for unused non-free files says they may be deleted after seven days. If you start a NFCR discussion tomorrow, it should be over in two days or so. You should be alright. As far as their use and context, you can use a permanent link to a historical revision of the page to demonstrate that. I don't know if Werieth is reasonable or not, I can't recall a time I've ever worked with them. But Kww is there too and if you can convince him then there is no need to also convince Werieth because the discussion has leaned a certain direction.--v/r - TP 01:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks very much. I appreciate the advice. Nice meeting you. Bertaut (talk) 01:15, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The clarification request that you have filed has been archived, with no action taken: [9] For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 05:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi TParis,

Sorry to bother you. The reason I am contacting you is that the error page says you are looking after the script. Please let me know if this is inappropriate.

The "pcount" script seems to have stopped working for the German language Wikipedia in the last few days. (It is still working fine for the English language one, and the alternate "yaec" script is also still working even for the German language Wikipedia.)

pcount on de wikipedia seems to switch between the following behaviours since Saturday or Sunday:

• It claims my user does not exist, often after a long wait.
• It claims the German Wikipedia does not exist, often after a long wait.
• It takes so long that a proxy server times out.

pcount on en wikipedia on the other hand still works fine. Similarly it works for the English language Wiktionary, but not the German language one. Perhaps some server communications error?

Strangely, another script, yaec on de wikipedia, seems to have no problem accessing the German Wikipedia. (But perhaps it simply does less work and so is less affected by any network problems?)

Thanks.

--SpecMade (talk) 23:16, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Try this one http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pcount/ and please update any links to toolserver on de Wikipedia to reflect the new URL.--v/r - TP 23:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that works much better (and faster). It does give an error message before the result though:

Warning: syntax error, unexpected '=' in Unknown on line 33 in /data/project/xtools/public_html/phptemp/PHPtemp.php on line 75 Warning: array_merge(): Argument #2 is not an array in /data/project/xtools/public_html/phptemp/PHPtemp.php on line 75 Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /data/project/xtools/public_html/phptemp/PHPtemp.php on line 79 Warning: syntax error, unexpected '=' in Unknown on line 33 in /data/project/xtools/public_html/phptemp/PHPtemp.php on line 75 Warning: array_merge(): Argument #2 is not an array in /data/project/xtools/public_html/phptemp/PHPtemp.php on line 75 Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /data/project/xtools/public_html/phptemp/PHPtemp.php on line 79
SpecMade - {#tool#} - X!'s tools 

BTW, I found the link on de:Spezial:Beiträge/SpecMade (at the bottom at "Beitragszähler (detailliert)"). Do you happen to know who can fix the links on those Special: pages? (Don't worry if not, I'll ask on its talk page then.) Thanks again. --SpecMade (talk) 23:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought I fixed that error already about an hour ago. Try it again and let me know. As far as who can update the link, ask an admin.--v/r - TP 00:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the script is working fine now. About updating the link I have asked on de.wikipedia (but it's night time in DE now). Thanks for all your help! --SpecMade (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to close this out, the link has been fixed too. Thanks. --SpecMade (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the move. Think you could re-unite Talk:IPad air with it's original host, iPad Air? I assume the page history of Talk:IPad Air should be preserved somehow. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

No problem, it's done.--v/r - TP 19:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

https://toolserver.org/~tparis/pages/index.php?name=Kaiyr&lang=ru&wiki=wikipedia&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects&getall=1 «Unknown database 'ruwiki_p'MySQL ERROR! Table 'toolserver.user' doesn't exist» - please fix. --Sunpriat (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Toolserver is being shut down Dec 31st. Try the WMFLabs version and please update all links on RU Wikipedia. http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pages/index.php?name=Kaiyr&lang=ru&wiki=wikipedia&namespace=0&redirects=noredirects.--v/r - TP 22:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

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 looks Austro-Hungarian battleships of World War I Op-ed: Advice on reviewing Featured and A-Class articles

Just to let you know, there's the beginnings of a discussion concerning your protection here. J Milburn (talk) 10:55, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Concerning this - I don't think anyone was trying to be snarky. The concern was more 'why are we using a week of protection in this scenario' - a question which was perfectly valid. Don't take it personally, as I'm sure Modest Genius' intention wasn't to call you out with the intent of disparaging your good name. Cheers, m.o.p 23:25, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Just make sure everything is correct Thank you :) Bwmoll3 (talk) 15:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Lou Sander notified the following individuals:

1. Liz
2. Annalisa_Ventola
3. Tento2
4. Askahrc
5. Iantresman
6. David_in_DC

about a discussion where the dispute was "How should the mainstream view of "science has become a series of dogmas" be addressed in the lead?"

In order to determine if those individuals were supportive of the mainstream principles of science, we review their histories in the field.

1. Liz has stated that she believes "There are Editors, skeptics, who do monitor all articles they label pseudoscience. That's not a conspiracy, they say as much on their User Pages that this is their interest on Wikipedia. I don't think they are evil, they are just quick to label any person who believes in alternate views of science as "fringe" or a "quack" and they don't want people with those views editing Wikipedia." She may very well be right. This is, however, a clear predisposition towards one side of the conflict - one hostile to the mainstream principles of science [10].
2. Annalisa_Ventola believes that Parapsychology is science. [11]
3. Tento2 has supported including content supportive of Sheldrake from "The Institute of Noetic Sciences," [12]
4. Askahrc has removed parapsychologist from the subject's description [13].
5. Iantresman was banned as a result of his being a "general POV-warrior of all sorts of pseudoscience and fringe science ideas."[14]
6. David_in_DC, while the lest egregious of the notifications, supports a lede which excludes the word parapsychologist from the description of Sheldrake (User:Tumbleman/sandbox#Alternate_lede_proposal).

Without arguing that this selection of editors are right or wrong about the content dispute (because we don't argue content here at this encyclopedia, just make sure no one uses the word fuck!), it is clear that the failure to notify vzaak, for instance, is glaring. Why was vzaak not notified? Should vzaak assume it's because he does not "know how to express opinions politely and helpfully?" That's incivil. Is it because Lou assumes vzaak will disagree with him? That's canvassing. Is it an oversight? Possibly, but then let's ask the same question about everyone who clearly disagrees with Lou on the talk page. OSTheRobot (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

You do realize that although you've expressed to Fluffernutter that you do not want to be connected to your real account, which hasn't edited in a year, that I'm going to have to assume socking? I'm very likely to simply delete this from my user page w/in 24 hours because I believe that promoting socking (by acknowledging issues brought up by socks) is more damaging to the encyclopedia than addressing the issues they bring up. I don't know your story, but if you're an indef banned disruptive user, then the best course of action is to not give you a reason to return.--v/r - TP 21:30, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I know you have better things to do than wade through the muck that section has become as the various sides again post their walls of only semi relevant text, particularly when you have also been pinged by someone who screams SOCK!!! I am sorry that I notified the editors which led to the new diarrhea of text, but I thought it was a necessary step when naming someone on the boards. I am hoping that my post that led to their notification doesn't get lost.

this notification by Lou is particularly telling. He titles the section heading with "Sheldrake/Tumbleman" although the section on the talk page has nothing to do with Tumbleman who had been indeffed several days before. Liz has been an ardent advocate encouraging Tumbleman and as can be seen here (uncollapse the Tumbleman results) Iantresman and Askahrc also speak in favor of him. None of the people who spoke against his actions in the AE were notified by Lou Sander. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

if you look at [this discussion about whether or not to use the word "hypothesis" you will find in support of the idea (indeffed user Tumbleman), iantresman, Annalisa Ventola. none of the people speaking against the use of the word "hypothesis" were in the "randomly" selected users notified by Lou Sander. Do you need more? I hate to have people have to slog through the mire on this topic.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)}

Thank you for your time. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

TRPoD, I gave Lou this message and his reply was "Got it, thanks". Let's give him time to see if the message sunk in.--v/r - TP 13:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for responding! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I saw your notice.

I request an immediate relaxation in respect of the articles History of the metric system and International System of Units, both of which are currently being reviewed as WP:Good Articles.

I also request an immediate relaxation in respect of an SPA that I am about to place on another user.

Thank you.

Martinvl (talk) 17:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I will consider the request for relaxation for the purposes of the GA review once I've reviewed the area to determine whether the dispute has crossed over there or not. If it has, I'm likely going to say no. If it has not, I'll allow you to finish the GA process on those two articles only. I'll let you know later today. I'm unable to relax the topic ban with respect to this other user, however.--v/r - TP 17:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I've reviewed both pages and I don't see recent overlap with the specific dispute that led to your topic ban. I'll allow you to finish the GA reviews provided that no disputes erupt on those pages with other editors, you remain civil, no wiki lawyering, and that they are wrapped up in a reasonable amount of time. Please limit your interactions to the GA reviewer unless a direct question is asked of you. If a dispute erupts on these pages during the GA review, I will rescind this exception prior to any block. I am also copying this to your talk page for easier retrieval from other sysops.--v/r - TP 17:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

You may wish to be aware that Martinvl has appealed the entire ban at WP:AN. --Rschen7754 01:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

This time right? I don't care if the IP is blocked. I just want them to follow our guidelines - WP:REDACT, WP:SEEALSO, etc. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Huh, I wasn't aware we could do retroactive blocks.--v/r - TP 18:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello!

I have made a few attempts to clean up List of new religious movements, which is a list article with a long history of contention, topic bans, puppetry, even at least one major contributor who was de-sysoped. Unfortunately, I haven't been successful in the attempt at cleanup. I'm asking you to take a look at the recent activity on the article and the talk page. Although I have my own thoughts on what some of the issues are, I would rather get yours without my frustration bleeding through too heavily.

I am dropping this note for the most recently active admins I saw, and I am hopeful that those extra eyes will make a difference.

Thanks for considering it, cheers! --Tgeairn (talk) 21:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I've taken a look and it seems pretty mild still. It might be frustrating, but ya'all are talking and it hasn't reached the level of edit warring yet. Keep trying to form a consensus or seek dispute resolution.--v/r - TP 22:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for looking, I appreciate it. We'll get there somehow :). --Tgeairn (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Curiosity: Did you get a little carried away with this revdel?[15] Or was it unfortunately necessary to protect that one red-link user who was supposedly being "outed"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't do the revdel, actually. I did the 'outing' apparently. I contacted OS to ask if they thought it was outing and they said that it's better safe than sorry and so I removed it. Then an OSer over-sighted the revisions between the introduction and removal of the link.--v/r - TP 23:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

10-4. It's not the first time I've seen that happen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't think it was a big deal to link the guy's linkedin since he uses his real name and has edited from his IP. Putting 2 and 2 together takes no effort. But apparently I was wrong.--v/r - TP 00:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Someone is suffering some serious RSI right now. Hey Bugs, you excited about the Alabama-Tennessee game tomorrow? Drmies (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

F- Alabama...it's a long shot - but GO TENNESSEE!!! (Ohh yeah, and go OU cause I get a free sub at Lenny's if they beat Texas Tech)--v/r - TP 02:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I know you asked Bugs, but since I frequent TP's talk page I thought I'd chime in. I'm more interested in the Oregon-UCLA game only because my Badgers have a bye week. But! I'm sure Saban will be angry at the bama fans again for leaving early during another blowout, sorry Bugs. However, I will be rooting for Tennessee solely because I want to see Bama lose. —  dainomite   02:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

See, I just need Tennessee to win so the Ducks can move into that top spot. Florida State isn't a threat. UCLA is going to get stomped.--v/r - TP 02:10, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Fuck your ducks, TParis. Ducks are gay and they don't even have guns. Ha! Dainomite may have a point about those Bama fans and it will be chillsome in Tuscaloosa, but they played South Carolina real good. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Don't be jealous...58 points a game. I almost want Alabama to keep top spot. I'd love to put the Ducks up against an SEC team this year. Auburn cheated us out of a BCS championship.--v/r - TP 02:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Lol Drmies! Yeah I'm rooting for a Bama-Oregon game this year and I would love to see Bama lose to the Ducks in the BCS championship. The LSU-Bama game in a few weeks will be a good one to watch. Drmies, I assume you're a roll tide fan? —  dainomite   02:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm...yes, the Ducks against an SEC team--one of those teams made up of rednecks that can run the ball all night long and don't like getting scored on...I wonder if that's ever happened, the Ducks against an SEC team, and how such a game would have ended... Tide rolls, administrative action may be required here. We outrank these heathens (since we're two admins, and they only got one), and I believe they spewed fighting words. Seriously, TParis, I actually rooted for Oregon during the first half of that game--I don't remember sticking around for the second half. Dainomite, yes, but guess where my paycheck comes from--from the plains. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I suppose I should let you know why I want to see Bama lose. Basically it's because my friend would throw a the largest fit if they lost because she's such a big Bama fan and it's always fun watching her squirm and not get her way xD. She went to University of Alabama just for the football team if that helps your understanding of the situation. Besides, watching the WI-Bama game in 2015 is going to be very painful so I have to get some enjoyment from somewhere. I'm not sure what Barry Alvarez was thinking when he signed up for us to play LSU and you guys. —  dainomite   02:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Not really. The teams I would most like to see win haven't won the national title since Eisenhower was in office. I do hope somebody beats Alabama at some point, especially if it screws with the BCS computer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello. Firstly I want to thank you for your work in this tool, very useful to most of wikipedians of all wikis; but this is not the matter I want to tell you.

Sometimes —and now from some days ago— I get a rare error when I try to count my edits on Spanish Wikipedia (my home wiki), with this message: ″Zerabat no existe″ (translated in english: ″Zerabat does not exist″). However, when I tried to see my edits on English Wikipedia, after a long time loading the page (toolserver is veeery slow) I finally saw my edits there. I do not know if it is an error when the tool try to connect to ESWIKI database or why, but this is not the only case I know in ESWIKI. My user account really exists. I would like to know what is the cause of this. Greets. --Zerabat (talk) 13:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you using the toolserver version or the WMFLabs version?--v/r - TP 13:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to thank you for your contributions. And I also got the same experience on the German Wikipedia with the same error message while calling this URL https://toolserver.org/%7Etparis/count/index.php?lang=de&wiki=wikipedia&name=Hippopotamus777 Regards Hippopotamus777 (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hippopotamus777. I suggest you try the WMFLabs link TParis gave explicitly under the similar discussion under User_talk:TParis/Archive_11#pcount script. It fixed it for me (for pcount rather than count, but same difference). --SpecMade (talk) 21:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

@SpecMade: Many thanks for your advice. I could fix de:Vorlage:Benutzerbeiträge. --Hippopotamus777 (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. I 've tried to use the tool to check the user's creations record, but it says: "Unknown database 'eswiki_p'MySQL ERROR! Table 'toolserver.user' doesn't exist". ¿It is posible to fix? Thanks a lot. Regards. Jaontiveros (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

We are migrating to WMF Labs. Please use this tool instead and please also update any links on ES Wiki.--v/r - TP 14:24, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Please restore our work with the new references that were supplied when you deleted the work. the old work from aperson that was deleted was resubmitted with hard back book copy this time please restore and go to my talk page.Drjonesesq (talk) 08:09, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I was initially going to ignore this, but others have strongly urged you to approach me and it'd be a waste of their effort if I didn't at least acknowledge and respond to what you said. So I will. Your original accusation that I am in some way a financial competitor was malicious and fairly laughable. You've made several legal threats against this site and its users for which it is a miracle you haven't been blocked and you've received endless amounts of patience and advice. You've ignored nearly all of that advice except for that which might serve your ends. But the fact of the matter is, you will never, and if I'm not clear that means there is not a chance in your lifetime, post that article on Wikipedia. You're conflict of interest has made it clear you're unable to edit within out guidelines. You use "esq" on your username, which I assume means you're a lawyer, so you should be well aware of what a conflict of interest is. The only chance of your site ever being covered by Wikipedia is if some other user decides to create it. And by some other user, I mean some editors that has edited on Wikipedia for a significant period of time, has contributions in many other areas of Wikipedia, and there is no way they could be you or connected to you or "Rent My Vacation home USA". If you truly are a teacher, which baffles me why any teacher would ever try to instruct their students on something they themselves are not an expert at, then you should've taken the time to choose a much more worthwhile subject that doesn't scream "ADVERTISEMENT". Seek other means to advertise this company.--v/r - TP 22:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Easy to see the site is corrupt please ban me and my students. Your in deep with competitors wonder how much money they donated. Make sure and hurry to delete and suppress information from the public so you control what everyone will read. This is a embarrassment as a encyclopedia and you should be ashamed as this is nothing more than a place to advertise you proved that. Did not even check the hardback books please ban me you run a site so corrupt and I will post this all over the net you will see you cant silence me you bully. You cant even wait for the appeal can you. In 3 weeks I will start to post what you have done in all media formats so be careful when you try to silence voices for profit..Drjonesesq (talk) 09:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

LMAO ... Drjones, we admins do not ever see a list of "who has donated to Wikipedia". TParis has no idea if your competitors have given a red cent to the project. Nobody wants you banned - you simply need to follow the rules. The article was deleted. Its replacement STILL didn't meet our requirements. You either try again as a draft article, and not in article space or you give up. If you're involved in the business, you're not permitted AT ALL to write about it. This isn't rocket frickin science - it's, in part, ethical behaviour. Wikipedia is a community - start acting like you're a part of it, because when you signed up, you AGREED to these concepts and rules without exception. You're not the first person who has written a poor article. You're not the first person who has tried to promote an entity. We're pretty sure you can change, which is why we're being so patient - even though you're making threats. Seriously ...THREATS? What is this, Grade 2? ES&L 10:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, even if he's involved in the business he can still submit a draft at WP:AFC. Whether it would get accepted there, is quite another thing.

As for "I will post this all over the net", that's most amusing. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 12:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I think he means "I will post all over the net that we tried to publish a promotional article on Wikipedia, and it didn't meet their requirements. I then tried again, without still fully understanding those requirements and ACCIDENTALLY believed that some random editor accepting something meant it was fine, when in reality, it was still wholly unacceptable, and it got found out again and deleted a second time. I will then post all over the net that I made threats to the people and to the project, based wholly on how poorly I listen to wise counsel, and how poorly I understand the purpose of Wikipedia" ES&L 13:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The Barnstar is greatly appreciated. Yes, it was a lot of work. I had thought of presenting it in a RfC/U, but that process seems Namby Pamby compared to the problem we faced. So I waited for the opportunity (e.g., for someone to say "te") rather than first strike myself and be accused of harassment. The comment we saw about "recently" learning about civility is pure flak. Back on 30 August I read "I think we need to be very careful to stay civil while still being honest and direct. It's not that easy, and when I slip, I will apologize and correct myself, especially if it's pointed out." Will the topic ban work? I had hoped for a block, but we will see. So I think continued reconnaissance is in order. – S. Rich (talk) 15:43, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I notice that in commendeding Srich for providing evidence (diffs) for his claims against User Miles, you noted that ANIs are often "mobs" acting in the absence of evidence (1). Leaving aside our disagreement on the particular case of Miles, your general observation indicates that the process is often a fraud and a travesty. Given your view in this regard, I think as an admin you have an obligation to push for general reform of the ANI process. Just a suggestion. Steeletrap (talk) 18:40, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I do. The thing is, it's not that we need to "bring change" - we just have to enforce our existing WP:NPA policy which requires serious evidence to be presented for serious accusations. I strongly opposed to ban of Wikiexperts.us because no evidence had been provided. I've argued a half dozen times on ANI for the same. But closing a discussion and my personal opinions on their supporting evidence have to stay separate.  :( --v/r - TP 19:00, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The references submitted meet all criteria and the work is not an ad of any kind Drjonesesq (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a difficulty there, in that Wikipedia does not have a "high panel". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Already addressed on user's tp. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

[16] Quite an inspirational story of courage in the most unlikely scenario. Slàinte mhath. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

That is a really great story, thanks for sharing. I like this line the best: "Thomas says she tries to do something to break down racial stereotypes every day. No grand gestures - she thinks that small, regular acts of kindness are more important."--v/r - TP 22:45, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

An AE request involving you has been closed. The result is that the edit made in violation of the ban has been reverted, no other action is needed at this time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:46, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Trick or Treat! Happy Halloween TParis! I hope you have a great day and remember to be safe if you go trick-or-treating tonight with friends, family or loved ones. Happy Halloween! —  dainomite   15:14, 31 October 2013 (UTC) Help spread Wikilove by adding {{subst:User:Dainomite/HappyHalloween}} to other users' talk pages whether they be friends, acquaintances or random folks.

What are you? The USR? LOL! Have a good Halloween.--21:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Happy Halloween! Steeletrap (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I hatted the Ludwig von Mises discussion at AN/I because I felt it was going nowhere and unlikely to be resolved except in a formal DR process. Some editors in the discussion support my action but some have implored me to revert myself. I'd appreciate your independent review of my action and I will support you in whatever conclusion you draw, whether to endorse it, undo it, trout me, or what have you. Thanks, alanyst 17:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, the issue is much more contentious than a non-admin closure would warrant. There is a requested at WP:AN/RFC for it to be closed. If I were you, I'd let it sit until a sysop comes by to close it. At the very least, it's a headache that you don't need.--v/r - TP 17:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. To clarify, I did not intend to "close" the discussion, but to direct it to a better venue. If you agree with that approach, would you mind taking up the reins to shepherd it in that direction? Or, if you feel the hatting was premature, would you mind undoing it for me? If I do it myself then there will undoubtedly be disputes about so-and-so having pressured an uninvolved editor, etc. etc. and I don't wish to add further fuel to the fire. Thanks, alanyst 17:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Also: thanks for pointing out the requested closure at WP:AN/RFC. If I had been aware of it at the time, I would not have intervened as I did. This dispute has really metastasized, hasn't it? alanyst 18:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Not to worry, I have full confidence in BD2412 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) to wrap things up.--v/r - TP 18:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Je ne sais pas si c'est là qu'il faut l dire, mais moi non plus, Lepetitlord account does not exist. Ah bon ? Joyeuses fraises! Lepetitlord (talk) 20:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Vous devez utiliser la version de l'outil Labs Wikimedia. S'il vous plaît mettre à jour les liens d'outils sur Wikipedia français. http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pcount/index.php?name=Lepetitlord&lang=fr&wiki=wikipedia.--v/r - TP 21:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am using many of the tools hosted at http://toolserver.org/~tparis and they are working fine. I am mostly active in Bengali(bn) Wikipedia and want to start a project by which the users will get banstars automatically for their contributions. To do this i will need to build some tools to get different type of statistics for the active users. So i think it would be helpful if you can assist me here and if it is possible you can share the source code with me. thanks --Nasir Khan Saikat (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Automatically? That goes against the whole concept of barnstars! They're supposed to be instant recognition by a human towards another human ES&L 17:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Could do the service awards automatically. Nasir8891, you should request access to the Xtools project on WMF Labs.--v/r - TP 18:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The name is not fixed yet, but we discussed this in our village pump and agreed that this type of system might encourage the contributors. I wanted to use it as a "Badge". The plan is, user will receive a if he can contribute upto a certain level. I checked the service awards earlier and the it will be a part of it. Because it only depends on Edit Count and Period, i believe this will not be the only points. Some one might be interested to update only the Help pages, or the 'Wikipedia' namespace pages. Or there are other people who only work on the 'Template' or 'Module' namespace. so there are several type of editors and their edit count do not increase in the same speed. So i just want to recognize then based on their contribution.

How can i request the access ? --Nasir Khan Saikat (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

http://tools.wmflabs.org/.--v/r - TP 18:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I have the access to the wmflabs, i asked earlier that, how i can i request to get the access of the xtools. --Nasir Khan Saikat (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Ask User:Cyberpower678 for access.--v/r - TP 14:32, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

It seems SCSI Express development is coming along fine, with the first products expected in the first half of 2014: http://www.slideshare.net/rbeetle/scsi-express-overview . The standard is definitely useful, as it allows SCSI disks to have a faster (12 Gb/s and 24 Gb/s) and simpler (direct PCIe, no intermediate controllers) connection. The deletion criteria for {{SCSI_Express}} from 2011 no longer apply, and the page should be re-created. (Sorry if this is the wrong place to post such a request, I am a total Wikipedia newb.) Thanks! 95.165.40.193 (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I havent had time to look, I'm very busy today (and yesterday) but I will give it an objective look.--v/r - TP 18:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that you would behave corruptly. In my dealings with you you have always struck me as a person of high integrity. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, but I'm just saying that I don't think I'm the only admin, or really any established editor, who wouldn't put this project at risk like that. The only reason I even search "Wikipedia" on the freelancer sites is to check for spam. I only even pick up jobs that seem legit and I do my own research before I even bid. And honestly, I haven't crossed the "paid to edit" line yet but I'm definitely skirting the edges.--v/r - TP 18:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I believe you. It matches what I've seen of your character. Still, searing scrutiny comes with skirting edges. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you point me to your close of WikiExperts please? I wasn't convinced that they had been seriously breaching the five pillars, and I thought their commitment to declare their COI and not edit was all we could expect of them. I'm sorry to see it went that way. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Umm, I didn't close Wikiexperts.--v/r - TP 00:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Uh. I thought I saw that somewhere. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:01, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I had a pretty strong opinion on Wikiexperts.us so I definitely wouldn't have closed it.--v/r - TP 13:47, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain why people seem to be acting like their brains have melted, please? Thanks! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, you see, most high-end computer processors have very efficient heat sinks and air cooling; if not water cooling. Humans on the other hand have to rely on sweating. So when complicated issues spring up that require some over-clocking of the noggins, well, the heat tends to melt important body parts.--v/r - TP 01:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

My 'nads don't melt ES&L 01:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

They must not be important.--v/r - TP 01:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

They are to me. Not so much to my wife sometimes LOL. They must cancel each other out ES&L 01:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thus far my requirements are mostly for HP DL980. They do put out a lot of heat, but, mostly in other places. You people are just weird :P --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi! Many thanks for maintaining this edit counter. Lately, it seems it only works for my account at English Wikipedia. It says my user name does not exist at the other editions where I'm active (svwp is my home wiki), or it says there is no such wiki. Do you know what's up? Best of wishes.--Paracel63 (talk) 14:31, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi again! Now the counter suddenly works for me for svwp. Well, it seems the tool is a bit erratic. Do you know if Wikimedia Labs will be taking care of this tool at some point? Best of wishes.--Paracel63 (talk) 14:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

See the archive at User_talk:TParis/Archive_11#pcount script. --SpecMade (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for the info. --Paracel63 (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Coren said that he wasn't actually in charge of maintaining the X!'s Counter and to come to you (or the other two people) for this issue. The Counter says that "deleted edits has been delayed... until mid-October," seeing as it's November is there any new information to report? If not, could it be changed to simply "availability date is not yet determined" or something similar? Just a pet peeve of mine. Thanks for all the work you and the other maintainers do! Coinmanj (talk) 01:11, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Although I never agreed to not post on PL's talkpage, he seems to have created his own rules that in order for him to agree to not post on mine, I was automagically not permitted to post on his. So, could you advise him of this NPA workshop. I would be very happy to "pay" for any personal attacks I have made against them ... however, I do not believe I have ever done any. I would be very pleased to respond to anything that PL can actually PROVE was a NPA as per the policy. As such, please invite PL to edit that workshop page and he can post on his talkpage when he's ready for me to respond to his proof ES&L 23:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I think you did the right thing, and I admire you for bringing it out for others to review when it would have been easy to just say nothing. Guy Macon (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Congrats! – S. Rich (talk) 06:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out yesterday but for some rason I could not reply to your E-mail. Luckely the auto block for my IP just expired. --The Cosmos Master (talk) 08:57, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi TParis. Please be aware that Jimbo has appointed you as a member of the Electoral Commission for this election. Good luck, and thank you for volunteering. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

I hope "congratulations" is the right word :) --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Voluntold at work... Voluntold on Wikipedia. Damn, you just can't escape it TP! —  dainomite   16:49, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Sekolah menengah agama al falah atau dikenali sebagai smaaf yang terletak di daerah raub negeri pahang. Sekolah ini bertapak di batu talam. Selo5ah ioi telah pun memenangi tempat pertama dalam pertandingan 4k bagi ketegori B pada tahun 2011 dan pada tahun 2012 telah memenangi hanya di tempat ke dua. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Molokyz (talk • contribs) 11:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

That's quite the lengthy series of discussions occurring on User talk:Jimbo Wales regarding some paid editing you have performed. Have you ever considered adding a box on your user page to list and disclose articles that you have received compensation for creating or editing? This seems like it would address some of the concerns at Wales' talk page while taking minimal effort. Another idea is to create a page listing stated articles, with a link to said page on your user page.

Another option to consider is adding {{Connected contributor}} to the talk pages of articles you have received compensation for contributing to or creating. I've noticed this tag on article talk pages that COI and paid editors have contributed to.

Just some friendly suggestions for you to consider. Cheers, Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest the path of least drama; accept the election and appointment to the Election Committee as sufficient indication the community is okay with your actions and just move on. (Obviously doing any more paid work is right out; this is Wikipedia, we expect our admins and functionaries to work their tails off for free). NE Ent 17:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

...For the work you are doing related to the UTRS system. I'm not active in that area, so know little about it, except that it seems to be an enormously successful solution to a problem. It is unfortunate that I'm only aware of it as a result of your comment on Jimbo's page, but maybe all clouds have a silver lining. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:21, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

You're a sysop, you could sign up. Plenty of unblock requests need sorting ;) --v/r - TP 16:22, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I could. But I see hundreds of open tickets in OTRS permisssions, and hundreds of open tickets in OTRS info. I volunteered to help with a potentially contentious OTRS issue which has chewed much of the last few,(and next few) days. I feel bad I've been absent from WP:CP recently. That's without considering article work, which I want to do.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you sleep at night? Sounds like that's a few wasted hours right there that you could be handling some UTRS tickets :)--v/r - TP 18:14, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

• Popping in here to second the thanks to you for your work migrating UTRS - this was a lot of work behind the scenes. Risker (talk) 03:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Have you been tinkering with the edit counter? 25% of it has been modified, and now it's broken.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 05:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Havent touched it, been working on UTRS.--v/r - TP 12:24, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I have removed JackPotte from the group. Everytime he touches it, things seems to break, and never get fixed. This is something that a highly visible tool can't use.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 14:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

"Warning: Do not use the Labs Project (this site) if you do not agree to the following: information shared with the Labs Project, including usernames and passwords, will be made available to volunteer administrators and may not be treated confidentially."

This implies that you're storing unencrypted/unhashed passwords. Is this actually true? If so, this needs to be fixed, like, immediately. If you are hashing passwords or something reasonably equivalent, then sorry for raising a false alarm, but if this is true, this is totally unacceptable. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The labs terms of service require me to use that exact disclaimer. Don't worry, though, passwords are encrypted, salted and encrypted again. --v/r - TP 17:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, when I attempt to use this tool to see which categories I created, [17] it seems to work but gives me lots of errors on the screen. Can you take a look when you get a chance? thanks! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Check 2 sections up.--v/r - TP 19:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Does this mean, you aren't working on it any longer, or you aren't working on it for now, and you may get back to it at some point? Are there other maintainers I should contact? Thanks! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hehe, you missed the obvious. It seems someone went and screwed up 25% of the code for the tools. Cyberpower is taking the lead on it, I've been focused on UTRS.--v/r - TP 19:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah ok, I didn't quite understand what they meant. Ok, I'll ping them. thanks.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Top edits hasn't been updating my info for about more than week now. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:12, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Was milesMoney's topic ban revoked? [18] Gaijin42 (talk) 03:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The extremely broad one never went into effect, as TParis undid his close. The narrow one affects a single article, and it's not the one you're linking to. MilesMoney (talk) 08:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Just FYI, you've deleted the page Belal taheri, but the page (newly set up but with the same problems) still stands as Belal Taheri (with proper capitalization).--Akhooha (talk) 03:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - got it.--v/r - TP 03:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

TParis,

Could I please have a copy of Michael Birch (journalist) in my sandbox to work on. I have a project whereby students write about journalists who have been killed, imprisoned or mistreated for their journalism. I think this is a worthy project to put more work into and develop. Crtew (talk) 03:59, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Crtew. The Michael Birch article was only redirected so you can find a copy in the articles history. duffbeerforme (talk) 06:32, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Tom -- I read your post at AN/I and thought of This, probably not what you are looking for, but Bish mentioned it a couple months back. Hope all is well! Lettik (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, damnit, that is exactly what I have been looking for, for months. Thank you for finding it.--v/r - TP 19:44, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

184.151.190.0 (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Federico Pistono. 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. 4v4l0n42 (talk) 02:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi TParis, (or do I call you T? TP? Paris? v/r?) Anyways, thanks so much for you help. I guess I'll hold on editing for now until I hear from you on how this works. By the way, just call me wolf. Thanks again. - thewolfchild 03:06, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

TParis, as I also suggested a WP:MENTOR may help, if you require assistance or "holiday cover" you may call on me at any time. I do hope this works out for all concerned. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 10:18, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi TP. I notice you closed this AfD but the deletion notices are still on the additional 3 nominated pages. Please take another look. Thanks, C679 21:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Done.--v/r - TP 22:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced you got this right - I don't see a consensus for saying that the warning must come from an uninvolved Administrator. And given that no one seems to want to monitor this area, that restriction becomes even more of a problem - and a suggestions that involved Administrators can't be trusted to warn someone. Could you take a look again, and either revise or reopen please? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I've replied at AN.--v/r - TP 19:29, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey there, you recently closed two AfDs ([19][20]) as redirect, but the pages had been moved prior to close, so you ended up redirecting the pagemove redirect instead. While this isn't really your fault, could you try to be a bit more careful in the future? Thanks, Ansh666 21:16, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

You should discuss that with the folks who moved the article. Per WP:AFDEQ, it's discouraged to move an article during an AFD. I closed 60 AfD's two nights ago, they moved two articles. Which one do you think is easier to try to be more considerate of?--v/r - TP 21:24, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

I do ask those who do the moves to not do so, but there are hardly ever any repeat offenders. I've posted on WP:AN asking what to do, and Nyttend advised me to notify both the mover and the closer. It's usually more of a problem with deletions, obviously. Cheers, Ansh666 22:55, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

TParis: firstly, thanks for your efforts to keep AfD up to schedule. Also, FYI, see additional information about article name changes that occur during AfD discussions at WP:EDITATAFD, "Moving the article while it is being discussed can produce confusion. If you do this, please note it on the deletion discussion page, preferably both at the top of the discussion (for new participants) and as a new comment at the bottom (for the benefit of the closing administrator)." Northamerica1000^(talk) 15:43, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

@Northamerica1000: TP here was the closer, not the mover. Ansh666 21:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I understood that from the start per your message atop. Northamerica1000^(talk) 23:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is that people who move articles at AfD generally don't leave messages. There also usually aren't repeat offenders (I'd say that a third are people trying to save their article because they think the discussion applies to what's under the title, not the content; the others are well-meaning gnomes who get the message after one try), so informing them is moot, since they don't do it again. Ansh666 23:38, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you delete and salt this? It has an asterisk. --George Ho (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't see why it needs to be salted just because it has an asterisk (I deleted it earlier).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The parent had been repeatedly recreated (and needed salting), so I salted the asterisk version since it seemed like they may try to get around the creation protection that way. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

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 US industry in World War II Op-ed: AustralianRupert offers a soldier's perspective on editing Wikipedia

	The Admin's Barnstar
	I appreciate the unblock, but even more strongly appreciate the "Kashmir example" of topic bans. It's a wise example that can only come from an equally wise mind. MarshalN20 | Talk 14:59, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You added UTRS #9348 to the OPP queue, but did you add the IP to WP:OPP? I don't see it there...--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I havent had time to yet. I was trying to find out if OPP is the right place for TOR blocks.--v/r - TP 21:46, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

If you're too busy I can pop it in there for you. Sailsbystars is quite good at verifying TOR/Proxy/webhost abuse via OPP.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 21:52, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

That'd be great, thanks.--v/r - TP 21:56, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I think your response in the section above was actually for me, so I've gone ahead and listed it. Cheers, --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 22:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you planning on replying to my email? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 11:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I just don't see the need. Your question isn't clear. You asked for IPBE which I granted. You mistakenly used an open proxy. Then you disclosed this mistake to ANI where you were given the good advice by Doc James that it was a accidental mistake and you were up front about it. As far as I'm concerned, problem solved. I'm not going to remove a userright from you because of a silly mistake that you're aware you made and honest about. Your guilty conscience will prevent it from happening in the future. There is no need for any kind of action by the community when your conscience has already corrected the error. So, what's the problem?--v/r - TP 14:08, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

dear TParis, please see.. what happened here--Sugeesh (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Changes_to_Wikipedia:General_sanctions_warnings.2Fnotifications_ok.3F. Just so we can get this finalized at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions before someone two weeks from now notices and has a fit or whatever. Sorry for not quite grasping what was going on first time around. Too much frustrating stuff to deal with on wikipedia sometimes. Sigh... User:Carolmooredc talk 17:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been waiting til you feel better before asking on Wikipedia talk:General sanctions who can change the language at Template:Austrian economics enforcement to say editors can leave template and log on, since Bbb23 doesn't want to do it anymore. I'm assuming since I'm not an admin I can't, plus even if I could, I think a neutral person should do it since I do intend immediately to use it regarding ongoing problem of poor sourcing on BLPs by an editor. So just wanted to add another thing to your list for when you feel better. User:Carolmooredc talk 04:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I am Fung Hok Yan, I am asking for reasons why you deleted my wiki article Humans of Hong Kong? I have read through the pages you suggested and I think my page was fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Funghokyan (talk • contribs) 18:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

There was a discussion here where it was determined that this article didn't meet our notability guidelines. Primarily because none of the sources are to reputable third party media. We don't count a bunch of facebook, workpress, and tumblr pages as legitimate media attention. We don't have articles on things that don't receive attention in the media. So, no, it's not fine. Frankly, many of the editors who reviewed it felt it was purely promoting Humans of Hong Kong. Wikipedia is not free advertising space. That's why your article was deleted.--v/r - TP 18:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

TParis- being new to this- may I respectfully ask how best to make better referenced changes to this page so that it is not this version which I believe is not very good (as even red pen of doom has remarked)? I am hopeful to at least be able to make it look more like the prior version with good references, and without instigating any type of edit war as seemed to occur with others....this current 'consensus' version is not very appealing either. This is not any type of argument, just seeking advice/help on moving forward from this very early edition.

v/r Wordasaurus (talk) 21:13, 20 November 2013 (UTC)word

You could start by assuring us you're not a public relations agent or working on behalf of the subject. Then you should stop white washing the negative attention she received out of the article. Neutral does not mean that articles arn't critical of a subject. It means that we arn't adding our own slant to the articles and only reporting what the reliable sources report. The sentence which describes why she was removed as a Korean liaison was well supported by sources. Then we can discuss how to improve it.--v/r - TP 18:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It's my understanding that you are mentoring this editor. Do you think that his spate of comments on WP:ANI is the best behavior for an editor who escaped a community indef block by the skin of his teeth? Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll talk to him about his passion, but I don't think he's wrong. You might want to step back and reconsider your approach to a clean start.--v/r - TP 01:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, talk to him about his comments on the Arb elections too ... the rest of the community is tired of seeing anything about the ESL/Bwilkins schism ES&L 01:17, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm not certain I can. Would I be talking to him as his mentor or as a commissioner? Well, either way, can you point me toward the comments your concerned about specifically so I don't have to track them down (or guess)?--v/r - TP 01:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but, in fact, I have already "stepped back", it has been Blackberry Sorbet who pushed this issue. I asked a few questions and pointed out some obvious things to the subject. I did not ask for him to email me his ID, that wasn't the point, and I didn't follow up any further after a few exchanges. The "issue" is being artificially kept alive by others.

Obviously, I disagree with your take on clean starts. A clean start is not, and cannot be, carte blanche which prevents editors from asking any editor who draws attention to themselves, as this subject did, what's going on. If it was, every vandal, troll and miscreant would be clean starting all over the place. It's clear from the clean start policy that the subject of the clean start has to meet the community half way, and that means not editing in the areas they edited in before and not drawing attention to themselves, say by posting on one of the highest volume pages in the project "I didn't do X because I didn't wish to arouse undue suspicion."

As for thewolfchild, I was not referring only to his egregious behavior on the thread that involved me, but to his comments throughout AN/I today. They are not a matter of "passion", they are a matter of very bad judgment on his part, and as his mentor, I think it might be a good idea to help him get past that, since other instances of bad judgment almost got him indeffed. To my eye, he's very close to being a net negative to the project, which you might consider to be one of the goals of the mentoring project, to refocus him onto content and away from comment. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

You may be right that other editors are continuing to post, but you'd be hard pressed to prove to me that they have any control over your keyboard to keep you replying. C'mon, I've been around you enough to know you're not stupid. You know very well that you are capable of walking away. But let's move on. On the subject of clean start, it is required that the editor avoid the behaviors or topic areas that they previously had trouble editing in. If this editor is exercising those behaviors or editing in those topic areas, it should be easy to guess who they are. If it's not easy to guess, than they probably arn't editing in the right spot to give it away and so it's not our concern. A clean start doesn't mean that editors pretend to be newbies. I'm not sure where you got that impression. Anyway, I continue to believe his opinion is correct. His insistence that his opinion is correct may need some tapering, and that's an issue for a mentor, but I'm not going to go tell him he's wrong even if I disagreed with him. His behavior is what I am mentoring, not his opinion.--v/r - TP 01:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I certainly agree with you that clean start editors are not required to pretend that they're newbies, and it's not the subject's edit summaries which initially attracted my attention, it was the comment on AN/I which I paraphrased above. Calling attention to oneself on that particular page is most certainly not behavior that a clean start editor should indulge it, and he can hardly be surprised that, having drawn attention to himself on an extremely high profile page, someone followed up and paid that attention.

On the main subject, I think you may be missing something about mentoring thewolfchild. It's certainly the case that his behavior needs to be better controlled, but it's also the case that his focus seems to be entirely in the wrong place. Were I mentoring him (and I concede that I would be a terrible mentor, which is why I have turned down the possibility the couple of times it came up), I would touch not only on the "passion", but on the types of edits he's making. We all know we're here to build an encyclopedia, and most of us also know how easy it is to get sucked into the maw of the various dramah boards; it's hard to resist, but it's got to be secondary to improving articles (or templates or categories or whatever). From my look at TWC's edit counts, he's much too involved in the bad stuff, and does too little of the good stuff. I think that's a point you should be making with him as well. Just my opinion, of course, and worth exactly what you paid for it, but there it is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It may get to the point where I have to ask him to avoid certain pages, but as I am still learning about my mentee, I'll have to come to those decisions on my own terms. If I fail, then it'll be my own fault.--v/r - TP 01:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, but I'm not certain you have an unlimited amount of time. He avoided a community indef block by the skin of his teeth, and the fact of the mentoring was one of the things that prevented that from occurring. It seems likely, given his behavior since that discussion was closed just a few days ago, that he may be heading for another community discussion, where the outcome is likely to be entirely different. Best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 19:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I've also e-mailed you - your urgent input would be appreciated, if not then I will have to make the decision as this needs sorting ASAP. GiantSnowman 20:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I've replied to the EC.--v/r - TP 20:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey there. As the current Major Events Coordinator and planner of the SUNY Purchase Culture Shock festival, I am a bit dismayed to see that the page has been deleted. I noticed that the claims repeatedly stated issues of notability, which I am a bit confused about. There are various student-run newspapers on campus that make explicit mention about various topics concerning the festival, and our school even has senior projects (required for receipt of a Bachelor's degree) that are about the logistics and coordination of the festival. Would love to discuss further. -Ray Chalmé — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.170.212 (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. In this message, you didn't include a timestamp, which will result in "zombie" talk page posts, as archive bots will not archive threads that do not include an identifiable timestamp. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi - that was sort of the point. I only messaged folks who have already voted and I wanted to make sure that users who may be semi active don't miss the message.--v/r - TP 00:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

That's... um... quite some logic.

There's also this, though that's a bed of Skomorokh's own making. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll wait until near the end of the voting period and if he hasn't voted by then I'll email him or post the message manually.--v/r - TP 00:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

No rush :) Ishdarian 02:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for all your work in coordinating the ArbCom election. Between your technical knowledge, communication skills, and overall conscientiousness, I am glad you are on the job, and want you to know that you are doing a great job "rolling with the punches". Thank you again for your tireless work, and please keep it up. Go Phightins! 04:13, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

On the edit counter which X! wrote and you maintain, the one for me shows only 50 edits for this month (Nov), when I know I have made many more. This also happened when I looked on another use's edit count. Is there a bug? Rcsprinter (message) @ 22:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Try this.--v/r - TP 22:20, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I have created a new report on the ANI noticeboard regarding the block of Joefromrandb. TigerShark (talk) 23:17, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sorry I suddenly vanished, the Arbcom elections caught my attention.--v/r - TP 23:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Afrer recasting my vote, there appears to be still some busgs. What i got was:

SPID:       5587
-----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)

followed by a page of alphanumeric computer code. Link to report this didn't work either. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:04, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that is supposed to happen so that you can keep track of your vote or something. Rcsprinter (message) @ 22:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• It is not supposed to happen - a page full of alphanumeric computer code?. Can I get an answer please, and some confirmation that my vote has been recorded. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

That was your hash "receipt" of your ballot being accepted ES&L 12:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

And your username appears on the list [21]. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you closed MarshalN20's appeal discussion. Could you explain how you came to the conclusion that there was not only a consensus, but a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" (see WP:AEBLOCK) for the result you reached? At first glance, there is at least one participant, Cambalachero, whose uninvolvedness appears doubtful, based on their being sanctioned in the underlying arbitration case. I'd be interested to know whether you evaluated the degree of involvedness of the participants, and what "uninvolved" means in this context as applied to editors, in your opinion (it's undefined in the relevant ArbCom remedy, as well as in the recent appeals policy draft).  Sandstein  19:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time to answer your question right now, but expect an answer NLT tomorrow afternoon.--v/r - TP 21:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not feeling good today, if you want to take me to ANI or Arbcom/C feel free otherwise I'll get back to you in a day or so.--v/r - TP 21:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

No need to hurry. Get well soon!  Sandstein  20:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, apparently I have strepp. Had a 102.4 fever most of the day and been in bed. Will try to get back to you tomorrow if my fever break tonight.--v/r - TP 03:21, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

User	Opinion	Involved	Notes
Wee Curry Monster	Unblock	Involved
EatsShootsAndLeaves	Endorse
ChrisGualtieri	Endorse
Sjakkalle	Unblock		w/ admonishment
Darkness Shines	Unblock
DES	Unblock		w/ admonishment
Beyond My Ken	Endorse
Cambalachero	Unblock	Involved
Lukeno94	Unblock
Chelios	Endorse
Nyttend	Unblock
Someone not using his real name	Unblock
Rockfang	Unblock
Sven Manguard	Unblock
Hobit	Unblock
Laser brain	Endorse		grey area
North8000	Unblock
Kahastok	Unblock
	72.2% favor unblock

I see a 72.2% consensus toward an unblock here in terms of a count of editors and their opinions. However, the strongest argument I felt was made by Cambalachero. Discounting his argument on the basis of involved seemed ad hominem to me. Specifically, "culture is influenced by history" is what particularly caught my attention. Even if I were to ignore the two involved votes, 68% is still a supermajority. Another thing that influenced my devision was that even Laser brain admitted it was a grey area and I recall a Big Bang Theory episode where Priya Koothrappali describes Contra proferentem.--v/r - TP 02:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

...although let's be honest, I actually did not !vote. I validated the existing block by providing the facts that made it valid. I did not recommend either retaining the or removing the block. ES&L 10:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, but let's be honest, it's not actually a vote ;).--v/r - TP 14:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough explanation, and I hope you are better now.

Your assessment of consensus is defensible, but I am concerned that by overturning the block the editors who supported the appeal may in effect have narrowed the topic ban considerably. As imposed by the Arbitration Committee ("all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed") it clearly applies, in my view, to the article Chile–Peru football rivalry because it is entirely about events in the past of two Latin American countries. This raises the question about whether the editors who supported the appeal – or you, by implementing its outcome – have violated the Arbitration Committee's decision, or the policy that Arbitration Committee decisions are final and binding (WP:AP). I'd appreciate your opinion about whether a request for clarification could help determine whether this manner of proceeding is consistent with applicable policy, or whether the appeals rules require clarification to prevent the impermissible amendment of Arbitration Committee decisions by other editors.  Sandstein  20:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I would say that the community has historically shown more of the properties of a fluid rather than a solid. Community decisions rarely, if ever, set precedents. I think that the decision you made an AE is within admin discretion and I honestly believe Bwilkins' argument was one of the stronger arguments and if I were to !vote I may have sided with him. I've warned Marshall that continuing to edit in similar circumstances is going to continue to attract attention and disputes and that the overturn of the sanction is not a shield from future concerns about sports related articles. I'm not sure if a clarification request would solve anything, I think each case needs to be treated on its separate merits. I think there is a good case to do exactly what you did at AE and I think that the discussion could've easily gone the other way. Marshall should keep that in mind in the future. Doing the same actions over again, the community might decide to be less lenient next time.--v/r - TP 21:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi TParis,

I am an involved editor and I disagree the conclusions you obtain from the list of "uninvolved" editors.

• Darkness Shines is heavy involved with MarshalN20, they are cooperating in War of the Pacific even after the TBan of MarshalN20, see my announce in ANI
• Kahastok has worked with MarshalN20 and is sharing a prize with him in Falklands Islands [22] and he has something like an "automatic lifting vote" with one of the involved editors of your list, see ask and then response.
• Chelios123 was involved with MarshalN20 (against him) in the edit war "Chile-Peru rivalery". This was the last TBAn violation of MarshalN20.

There are 18 votes, 13 unblock and 5 endorse. But if you discount the involved and the w/admonished editors (Cambalachero, WCM, Kahastok, DS, Sjakkalle, DES and Chelios123), the first 6 editors voted for unbock, the last for endorse, you obtain 5 for unblock and 4 for endorse.

You can add or let Laser brain, anyway I don't see a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors". I see rather a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of involved editors".

Get well soon! --Best regards, KS (wat?) 15:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Involved does not mean "someone who has ever interacted with this editor ever". Involved means that an editor is part of this issue. Is Darkness Shines involved in editing the article that led to the block? If you feel so strongly about it, bring the issue up at Arbcom/C. This isn't a !vote.--v/r - TP 18:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hint: The conflict we are discussing, that Darkness Shines et al are not involved in, is Chile-Peru football rivalry. This is the article that led to the block, this is the dispute where we determine whom is involved. That two editors have interacted in the past does not make the other editor involved in this dispute.--v/r - TP 21:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

If the reason is the "rivalry"-article only, why was M20 blocked for 59 days and not only for 30 days as foreseen for a violation of the TBan?. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 13:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Because it was his second violation of the topic ban - first block was for 30 days, next escalation is for 60 days ES&L 12:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, because if the reason for the block doesn't exist, than the extraneous reasons to make it longer don't matter. You're really not going to let this go, why such the battleground attitude, eh? Are you looking for a topic ban yourself?--v/r - TP 14:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

It appears he's looking for an Interaction Ban :-) ES&L 12:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Topic Ban, Block, Interaction Ban ... My English proficiency has become better than your system administration!. I have a better idea. Please delete my account in the whole Wikipedia.--Best regards, KS (wat?) 18:55, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Tom, we have interacted a bit in the past and I believe we respect each other, but this was not a good decision. Sandstein makes several good points above, and I'd like to add that Marshal has been skirting the topic ban for some time. Seeing a comment like "MarshalN20 promises to give the topic he is banned from an even wider berth" in the AN discussion makes me laugh, because he's banned from all articles of Latin American history, "broadly construed". Editing that article is a smaller berth, not a wider one. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:10, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding: the comment from Laser brain in that discussion puts this whole situation in a far better context than I've ever been able to on-wiki. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Ed - the other option was to supervote that discussion which would've been equally if not more controversial.--v/r - TP 23:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. If one side has three people saying "block, I don't like him" and the other says "unblock, for logical reasons listed here: 1, 2, 3", you're allowed to side with the latter. As an administrator, you are trusted in assessing consensus, and consensus is not vote counting. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:27, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey Tom, hope you have gotten over the man flu. Just want to point out, I am not involved with MN20, I asked him for a translation. All this post by K is showing is that he has a severe battlefield mentality with regards to MN20, and now obviously myself. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hatting was great, but perhaps you could change your hatting comment to something, uh, more detached. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Heh - I think the comment is pretty spot-on. But to be clear, I'm entirely detached.--v/r - TP 23:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this thread prior to having copy edited the hat statement. I was bold in doing so because I believed you would support my action. Naturally, I won't force the copyedit if you do choose to revert it. Best regards—John Cline (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, I won't complain.--v/r - TP 03:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I came here to say more or less the same as Bbb23, but I see he beat me to it by a few hours. The hatting was of course essential, but the tone of the comment was not exactly the kind of thing that lowers drama either. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I sent it to you yesterday. Just wanted to see if you got it. —cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes I did and I was trying to setup some URL rewrites yesterday. I can't give you my key, but I was going to try setting up the forwarding myself. Might just need to use some javascript instead.--v/r - TP 14:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I gave you something already to replace the index.php files with. Don't start replacing them just yet.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 17:18, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

TParis, can you respond to my email? I would like to send you a nifty index.php file that you can you to replace every index.php file with on tool server. It automatically notifies the user trying to access the tool, gives them the correct link, and redirects them to a few seconds later, with all the GET parameters in place.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 13:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry for being all officer the place on your talk page right now. This is just a friendly bump.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 00:03, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: I replied. Are you on IRC, I need help with some PHP--v/r - TP 01:16, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Care to use User_talk:Shirt58#Hello / User_talk:Shirt58#Hello_2 as a teachable point? Toddst1 (talk) 05:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi TP, I've just begun changing the links from tools on the toolsever with the same link on labs for the MediaWiki:Gadget-dropdown-menus gadget (the updated .jsis in my userspace). The only equivalent tool I haven't found is the edit summary calculator. Have I missed it or is the transition not completed yet? Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Not all the tools have completely been migrated yet, sorry. I'd say I could take care of it, but I'm incredibly busy with the election, my work, and another project I'm working on right now. So sorry.--v/r - TP 02:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

No worries at all. There's no hurry, it's just a little thing I've been going to do for a while and finally started doing it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I've had that on my todo list, and hope on getting it finished up tomorrow.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 03:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Cyberpower, are you planning to have a go at taking over Scottywong's tools...please? :) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:02, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I can try.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 04:34, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I desperately need https://toolserver.org/~snottywong/rfastats.html and https://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/commentsearch.cgi ported @C678: Josh Parris 23:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Scottywong has joined the migration project to the partially migrated tools, as well as Theopolisme. They should be fully migrated soon.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 00:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

• Tool migrated.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:33, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • @Cyberpower678: What's it's URL? I'm probably just being blind, but I can't find it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

    You are. :p Just change toolserver.org/~tparis to tools.wmflabs.org/xtools.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 12:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

    Thanks, it is top of my to do list come Tuesday. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

    I actually have a favor to ask you. When you become an admin, can you hunt down all instances of "toolserver.org/~tparis" and change them to "tools.wmflabs.org/xtools"?—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 12:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

    Actually I've been thinking about this as well. Apart from going through "toolserver.org%2F~tparis"&fulltext=Search this one by one have you got any ideas on how that could be done reasonably easily. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

    An adminbot?—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 14:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

    Then again, maybe a human admin should do that.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 14:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

    (edit conflict) Nah fully protected pages would need to be human done. There are too many instances where it would need to stay as is or wouldn't be necessary to change. But there might be a case for a normal bot to do unprotected/semi'd pages, not sure. But creating a list of them sorted by namespace and protection level would be helpful (as long as there are reasonably restrictive parameters). It'd be something to consider for all tools being migrated (so this might be a discussion worth having on one of the village pumps). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

    Most access places are only editable by sysops.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 15:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

    Use Special:LinkSearch to generate a list of toolserver links, and then go through the ones that link to TP's tools. →Σσς. (Sigma) 21:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

    Took me a minute to get Sigma's suggestion to work, but try this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALinkSearch&target=https%3A%2F%2Ftoolserver.org%2F%257Etparis.--v/r - TP 22:21, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

    Thank you! I've started working on a list of templates which need to be updated (Template:Userpageinfo seems to be a big one, with 5000 other pages appearing on the list because of it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:45, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

    A couple of places use fullurl and link to the toolserver through an interwiki. What's the equivalent for tools:~tparis/pcount/index.php? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

    I think toollabs:xtools/pcount/index.php.—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 00:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I got an HTTP 502 error here.[23] "invalid response from an upstream server ... could not handle the request GET /xtools/pcount/index.php ... Error reading from remote server" Presumably this is related to migration, and I'll note that around the same timespan a Scottywong thingamajig over at toolserver.org needed 623 seconds to work (100x more than normal), though this might be unrelated coincidence, rather than intertwined symptom.

  The homepage[24] works fine, but clicking on xtools there does not work fine. Both cyberpower and tparis are listed there for xtools, and I see them both here as well, so it looks like I came to the right place.  :-)   I'm in no hurry, but prolly I'm not the only one depending on xtools either, so if somebody can look into this, it would be appreciated. Danke.

  p.s. Java==JScript over on wiktionary because they accept UseNet as a reliable source of linguistic attestation, and in particular, "HOW TO MAKE A JAVA ALERT POP UP ON LOAD" from 1996 is their evidence. Hard to argue that people are confused about the meaning of words, when only two things are conceivably infinite. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The webserver was clogged. I rebooted it. Looks like I need to work on debugging the tools a bit to prevent hanging connctions.—cyberpower _{Limited Access}^{Merry Christmas} 17:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I believe I have finished migrating all the used tools. Can you make a local backup of your toolserver account? Also, can you tell me if I missed something?—cyberpower _Online^{Happy Thanksgiving} 00:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for replacing the index.php file on the counter, but can you replace the others with that file too?—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 17:29, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I thought I did them all, which ones did I miss?--v/r - TP 18:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

All of them by the looks of it. :p—cyberpower _Online^{Merry Christmas} 18:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

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)

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^{Merry Christmas} 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)

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 [added Andrevan@ 03:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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)

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~ ^⊤άλҟ 21:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how, but it started to work again. ~Nirvanchik~ ^⊤άλҟ 19:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

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 [un]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.[25] 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 Wikipedia: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)

I've asked the Clerks to remove me. Your opinion of the circumstances is noted, but not supported by policy. Patrolling admins do not become involved in the dispute by performing administrative actions and you've not demonstrated me getting involved as an editor. But more importantly, I really couldn't care less about how the dispute eventually ends up and don't care to get involved in the Arbcom case. I have a hard time seeing Arbcom issue an admonishment to me without a finding of fact supported by a principal, which would require a policy or guideline.--v/r - TP 00:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a common misconception that I run across frequently. Just because I've taken administrative action against someone doesn't make me involved, whether or not that action was reversed. Toddst1 (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It then becomes a matter of perception and ethics; but not policy.--v/r - TP 00:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

There was no urgent need to close the discussion, especially as the block was going to expire anyway. So, why close the discussion? The possible perception was that you were worried about having your decline overruled, so you were eager to close the discussion while it was still in your favor. Better would have been to just leave the discussion alone, or wait out the block duration and then close the discussion as moot. --Elonka 01:10, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

My history shows a pattern of frequently closing ANI discussions that have served their purpose. I was considering closing the restriction part of that thread as well but decided that another day or so didn't hurt it. You're grasping at straws. I think you are overstating the importance of that close and I know you are overstating my importance overall. You might want to consider, overnight, whether it serves any purpose to list me as a party.--v/r - TP 01:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

If I may be so bold, I find myself in complete agreement with Elonka's comments and actions. The advice to you, in my view, is quite sound. Jusdafax 02:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

After I sharply criticized you in the RfB? I'll take your comments with a hefty grain of salt. Probably about as much as you took my advice to you several days ago. Elonka is misguided but honest, you are being disruptive to get payback. And I suspect your only purpose here is to stir more drama since you didn't get enough attention at the RfB. Please find your way off my talk page.--v/r - TP 03:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

TParis, sorry, but I still feel strongly that your closing of the ANI discussion had the appearance of a supervote. You were already an effective participant in the discussion by having declined Jclemens' unblock request. For you to close that thread was as inappropriate as if one of the other participants in the thread tried to close it to their preferred opinion. I am concerned that you don't seem to see this, and further concerned that your reactions are becoming increasingly defensive, to the point of referring to me as "misguided", and trying to order another editor "off your page", another stance that is not in agreement with Wikipedia practice. This is not the collegial way that administrators should act, and I hope you will reconsider your stance here. The best way you could have responded when the concerns were first brought up, would have been to say, "Thanks for pointing that out, I'll keep it in mind going forward." But instead, your continuing insistence that you're right and others are wrong/misguided/disruptive is raising further questions about your judgment. Please pause before replying, and think carefully about how you wish to respond. --Elonka 17:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Do what you wish Elonka, but don't confuse Jusdafax's comments here with real support. He's angry at me for a dispute a few days ago. You're on your own in these feelings and your interpretation of WP:INVOLVED is off. No one was discussing me or my decline, you briefly mentioned it. You've spent more time on my page than you spent on that ANI discussion talking about me. So we'll just have to wait out the Arb case then. You can't say what the best way to respond was, because you hold a distinctly opposite opinion of me and so your expectations are naturally going to lean toward your viewpoint. The best way for you to respond here, is to back off your accusations and retract your Arbcom statement about me and accept that your opinion isn't shared by me, by policy, and by others. Short of that, I'm happy to see what the Arbs say if I even become a final party.--v/r - TP 17:51, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, I wasn't invoking WP:INVOLVED, I was invoking WP:SUPERVOTE, which this entire situation seems to have an unfortunate pattern of. There are some who are saying that 28bytes made an inappropriate supervote at the original AfD. Jclemens clearly made an inappropriate use of a supervote when he prematurely closed the DRV. And it's my belief that you made an inappropriate use of a supervote when you early-closed the ANI thread. It had only been open for less than a day, discussion was still ongoing, there was no need for a rapid close. In any case, it's looking like this discussion has become repetitive, so I doubt there's much more I can say on the matter. My ArbCom statement stands. For what it's worth, I don't see you as a major player in the dispute, just one more link in an unfortunate chain. --Elonka 20:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

A supervote? You're clearly not thinking about this objectively. The !vote was 67% in favor of retaining the block and the block expired in a little over 3 hours. It would've required ~14 folks to consecutively !vote in favor of unblocking within the next 3 hours to have overturned the block. IIRC, that were only ~30 !votes to begin with in the 21 hours it was open. So that would've required a 320% increase in voting in that period, again all consecutively in favor of unblocking. That's just not a reasonable interpretation of supervote.--v/r - TP 20:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm pretty objective about this.  :) I spoke in favor of your rationale in the discussion, remember? Curious though, I saw your 67% number in your ArbCom statement, and I was curious about how you derived that? On my read, the block/unblock comments were pretty much even.[26] No clear consensus either way, but no compelling reason to rapidly close the discussion, either. --Elonka 21:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Did you read the comments as well as the !votes? It's not a !vote so comments have weight as well.--v/r - TP 21:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

The arbitration case request that you were a party to has been declined by the Committee. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen7754 05:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your help with ACE this year. GiantSnowman 13:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

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: Carcharoth and Hawkeye7 look at World War I cemeteries and the British Army in World War II Interview: Less-represented areas of military history – part 2 Op-ed: TomStar81 and Nick-D look back on 2013 and ahead to 2014

Hello, TParis. Over the years, I have found some of your tools (originally at toolserver) extremely useful, and I should like to thank you for them. As you are no doubt aware, migration to labs has not entirely been trouble-free, and sometimes it has been difficult to determine whether a tool has been removed, or merely moved to somewhere unexpected, making it hard to find. I wonder if you can tell me whether there is any currently available tool for checking for autoblocks? Not having one creates significant difficulties, probably the worst being the inability to check for autoblocks when an account is unblocked, which means that sometimes the account effectively stays blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

on my phone right now but have you tried http://tools.Wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/ ?--v/r - TP 16:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes I have, in fact it was a failed attempt to go there that led me to search elsewhere, and the failure of that further attempt led me to try asking you. The link you gave just gives me a page beginning "Four hundred and four! The URI you have requested, http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/autoblockfinder.php, doesn't seem to actually exist." (URI presumably means URL.) JamesBWatson (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, the joys of edit conflicts! By the time I posted that message, you had already replaced the URL with one that works. Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I have now updated Template:Unblock reviewed and Template:Unblock-un reviewed with the URL you have provided, so that should help to reduce the number of admins suffering the same frustration that I underwent. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I am a use of Italian Wikipedia, and it was some time I was not verifying my edit count. When I did today, I was modified that the tool was permanently moved on Labs (fair enough). Unfortunately, when I landed there, there was no stats to be seen, apparently the thing is not working. Could you please verify and make me know why this happens? The link I followed was http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/count/index.php?name=Ferdinando%20Scala&lang=it&wiki=wikipedia. You can fin me on it.wiki at Utente:Ferdinando Scala. thanks a lot in advance and happy Christmas!--Ferdinando Scala (talk) 15:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Try this link instead: http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pcount/index.php?name=Ferdinando%20Scala&lang=it&wiki=wikipedia--v/r - TP 16:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll answer here since that thread is getting out of hand.

I do recall the Balloon boy hoax but I don't see how it applies. We know that on-the-spot reports should be taken with a grain of salt: reports of Jewish guns being confiscated in 1938 come from that government or from reporting, but basic accuracy and fact-checking wasn't always possible. Besides, lots of other things were confiscated and the sources (I listed one on that talk page) seem to agree that it was of little relevance since "the Jews" were not much in the way of an armed part of the population--many of their weapons were memorabilia from World War I, and many weapons were not firearms. In other words, the importance of weapons confiscations is highly questionable. In addition, the 1938 legislation, as I pointed out on the talk page, also involved loosening gun restrictions on hunters and NSDAP members, which strikes me as much more important than taking a couple of rusty old pistols from WWI veterans--hunters and Nazis had much easier access to weapons and ammunition and (I think the record is clear) Nazis actually did something with those weapons. It's not like there was a vigilant and heavily armed Jewish citizenry. So, a report that some guns were confiscated from the 1938 NYT lacks context and presents undue-ness: they could barely report on how many guns were legally acquired, without the need for a permit, by Nazis who could freely wave them around to intimidate their opponents.

The POV on the Gun control page boils down to this: the Nazis exercised gun control over the Jews so gun control is evil; the larger one is "authoritarian regimes (routinely) employ gun control to render their opponents (more) harmless"--you can find that in various shapes and off-handed comments on the talk page. It's masked by being represented as objectively established fact. But those facts are not uncontested. It is a fact that the 1938 law barred Jews from gun ownership (and other related things) in certain ways. But that fact alone is meaningless, since lots of governments exercise gun control, and picking one country, one historical period, over all others is undue: it suggests undue importance. I have brought that up on the talk page, but the opponents haven't addressed that. To avoid undue-ness, really all countries and all times should be mentioned--not just Hitler and Mao.

A more general point is the NRA POV, exemplified by citations from Wayne LaPierre and Neal Knox as I found them in the 1968 gun law article. Citing their opinion on past gun legislation could be valid in an article on opinions on past gun legislation, but that's not what we're talking about here. These articles concern historical fact, and the synthesis of someone like Knox concerning who saw and knew and copied what in the process of writing the 1968 legislation is simply not relevant in those articles. And as I and others noted there are serious problems with citing these Google snippets, for reasons I don't have to go into, I hope. You're a reasonable man and you know that context matters, and that snippets by definition can't give much context. So I find that citing those snippets, against better judgment and against the opinion of other editors, is just as disruptive or more so than removing them. Because the opposite position of "authoritarian regimes use gun control etc." is not the opposite POV, "authoritarian regimes don't use gun control etc." And if such regimes exercise(d) gun control, it works in all kinds of ways--not just restricting it to one category; and if they did it's hardly one of the more meaningful aspects of their legislation. (Note that one editor accused Goethean and others of abusing the memory of six million dead Jews! an awful personal insult.) Rather, the opposite is "the record does not prove that authoritarian used gun control in a meaningful way to further their political goals". That statement is an opinion also, a meta opinion if you will, but I and others maintain that the suggested slant in the article is simply not proven. In other words, the POVs on either side are not equivalent: removing a POV is not automatically POV, so to speak. Well, that's enough for now. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem at the moment is that you're discussing content in the article and I'm discussing the habits of an editor. We're not talking about the same thing. I'd largely agree with you on the article, I've said as much already.--v/r - TP 17:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

But you disagree on the first point I made ("on the spot") and you think Goethean is doing little more than disruption...in my opinion, removing POV and poor sourcing is required, not an act of disruption.

Also, I want to elaborate a bit on that first thing--I was painting a doorway just now, and that's an excellent occasion to think. You mention the balloon hoax, which I assume you used to prove that contemporary press reports should be cited. Well, the hoax was precisely about that immediate coverage, which turned out to be incorrect, so of course that's acceptable. But citing on-the-spot reports from reliable sources poses significant dangers: I wrote up SS Sirio a while ago, a ship full of Italian and Spanish immigrants that wrecked. The NYT and other sources reported at the time that male Italian passengers armed with knives prevented women and children from getting on the lifeboats; turns out, of course, that this was nothing but slander (of the racist kind) concocted in the heat of the moment. I don't think such reports were retraced by those papers, but later historical research set the record straight. That is the danger with allowing on-the-spot reports, even if made in otherwise reliable sources, and it's the kind of stuff that cannot go into our articles unless seriously encapsulated in modifying phrases--and even then, one should question the value of such reports. Something similar happened in the case of John M. Bacon, a US general involved in a skirmish with native Americans: one contradictory report followed another. In other words, I seriously doubt the value of such reports, and the willy-nilly citation thereof. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

My problem is that you might be right about on the spot reports, but we don't pick and choose when we're going to follow such a rule and not and we especially don't do it so flagrantly along the lines of our own POV. That's POV pushing; clear as day. Reverse this guy's argument and then ask yourself if it makes sense. Whether the article needs to be cleared up doesn't change this guy's approach. The ends do not justify the means.--v/r - TP 22:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

If I had put in the Sirio article that Italian men were preventing women from getting on the lifeboats I would have made a grievous error. Not using sources one has doubts about is not POV pushing, it's exercising common sense. BTW, I saw your comment on the page numbering issue, and I think requiring a page number is acceptable if, for instance, one suspects that the editor being questioned hasn't actually read the book. But anyway, I'll holler at you on a better day. Drmies (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It's a reasonable request but not a reasonable requirement. A lot of editors check out these books from the library or they pass through their hands. I had my hands on a lot of medical books about a year ago that I no longer have. If someone made such a request of me for Surgical Positions, I couldn't do it. This project suffers from liberal POVs on recent political US articles. While I'm not friend of the Conservatives, and especially the Tea Party, and I'm not advocating for that article, I think that the ANI thread is about to endorse one POV in favor of another. Topic banning that one guy, forget his name, and keeping Goethean is going to make the article go the opposite direction but just as far off the NPOV scale. If anything, topic ban them both. Goethean shouldn't be anywhere near US politics articles. He is incapable of not pushing his POV.--v/r - TP 23:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In 1933, the New York Times carried coverage of the Holodomor—a catastrophic man-made famine in the Ukraine which claimed somewhere between 2 million and 7 million lives. Walter Duranty, the Russian correspondent for the Times, wrote that there was no famine, that the Russians were "Hungry but not starving", and that "the harvest is splandid and all talk of famine now is ridiculous." But when we write about the Holodomor today, in 2013, we don't assign Duranty's contemporary reportage the same weight as we assign later scholarship and reporting on the subject. The doings of totalitarian governments in particular are often opaque in the moment and clear only in hindsight after their fall. My point is that fetishizing a 1938 newspaper article on Nazi Germany - even one in a reliable source like the Times - doesn't make any rational sense if the objective is to summarize current human knowledge.

Regarding Gaijin42, I think he's gone over the top in this instance, but I generally have a great deal of respect for his sense of fairness and decency and a good deal of esteem for him as an editor. He was one of the standout voices of sanity and basic human decency in the demoralizing cesspit at Talk:Shooting of Trayvon Martin, for instance, and while his political views are hardly difficult to ascertain I think he's generally able to edit neutrally and productively. MastCell ^Talk 23:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You see, I'm not disputing that. You and Drmies think I am when I'm not. I'm disputing that you can determine that your logic works in this instance but ignore the fact that the logic works exactly the same in modern instances as well such as the Balloon boy hoax. Recentism, while affecting the 1933 article, also affects probably an estimate (pulling a number out of my butt) of 60% of our articles. Either we establish a 'hindsight' policy or we don't, but we don't pick and choose when to apply the policy based on our POV.--v/r - TP 23:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Any logic which leads us to prioritize a 1938 newspaper report about Nazi Germany over reputable current scholarship is faulty logic. I guess I don't see the inconsistency here, although I may just be misunderstanding your point. As the understanding of a topic increases over time, we should update our coverage to reflect modern understanding. That's true of Nazi policy and of the balloon-boy hoax. MastCell ^Talk 00:00, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

My point is that we're inconsistent and that inconsistency more often than not follows an American-left opinion; at least on recent American politics articles. This editor has a history now and before of calling Conservative sources bullshit amongst other things.--v/r - TP 00:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I used to think that pointing to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS was a pretty rude way to try to win an argument. And I think there is still some merit to that position. However, I better understand now why that link exists. It is because vague generalizations about an editor's "history" like yours provide no actionable information for Drmies, MastCell, or an outside administrator like myself.

Collectively, the four of us have at least two decades experience on this project. I think eacth of us could easily point to a time when we saw editors de-prioritizing high quality sources and emphasizing other sources instead. Sometimes we were able to address the matter and sometimes we lost the argument. The solution is not to start cutting standards everywhere but to instead highlight cases where editors are trying to push any type of source – be it a geocities website or Daily Kos or the Heritage Foundation – over serious scholarship. If you see that, bring it up. You can't complain about bias unless you make an attempt to address it. If what you mean is that we are "biased" to the consensus of English-speaking historians, sociologists, political scientists and other scholars, well, in that case I have less sympathy for that position. We are, after all, purporting to create an English-language encyclopedia. NW (Talk) 01:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

NW - I pointed to a couple of diffs in the thread on ANI that this conversation forked from. Anytime you see someone call Fox News "Faux News" on Wikipedia in favor of equally partisan liberal sources such as the SPLC, you've got "editors de-prioritizing high quality sources"--v/r - TP 02:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a discussion on using the SPLC instead of Fox News for a source on any given article. It does not really matter if we cite Fox, CNN or Reuters on the Boston Marathon bombing; they're all going to have the same content because they are all broad-coverage, mainstream news organizations. The SPLC focuses on a more niche area (civil rights advocacy and associated reporting) and hence there won't be as many other sources on the topics it focuses on. And I'm not sure I understand how that statement relates to the conversation we have here. I have read the ANI discussion, multiple times. Did I miss you pointing out where editors tried to insert lower quality sources and taking out higher quality sources? Certainly something like this wouldn't count, yet I see that you have cited it as an example of tendentious editing. That perplexes me. NW (Talk) 02:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Sources have to be verifiable. That's it. They do not have to be easily verifiable. If Goethean wants the page number, he can open the book and read it. Asking for the page number is a tendentious excuse not to use the source. And again, you, like the other two here, are confusing a conduct issue with a content issue. As I pointed to in the diffs, this is a case of a user with a severe hatred of conservatives. He has already been topic banned from the Tea Party. He shouldn't be editing anything involving conservatives.--v/r - TP 02:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)