→B2C close: Re MelanieN |
|||
Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
:::::OK, thanks for the explanation. In case of future enforcement need, then (and I'm hoping there won't be any such need), should we ask some individual admin to look at it, or post the need somewhere? --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 14:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC) |
:::::OK, thanks for the explanation. In case of future enforcement need, then (and I'm hoping there won't be any such need), should we ask some individual admin to look at it, or post the need somewhere? --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 14:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
::::::Ask an uninvolved admin or post on [[WP:ANI]] and reference the close. As you said in your OP post, though, B2C is receptive to being asked to step away. I don't think an administrative discussion ban will ever be necessary. What I strongly recommend is to do this: if B2C has explained his point, kindly explain to him that you've received his message and you'd like him to step away so uninvolved editors can weigh his opinions without anyone's involvement. Try that before approaching an admin. No one needs an admin with a gun to their head. My close empowers other admins with a new tool but it is not meant to be a first step. Give B2C a chance, on each discussion, to step away before asking an admin to make him step away. Seem fair?--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 14:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC) |
::::::Ask an uninvolved admin or post on [[WP:ANI]] and reference the close. As you said in your OP post, though, B2C is receptive to being asked to step away. I don't think an administrative discussion ban will ever be necessary. What I strongly recommend is to do this: if B2C has explained his point, kindly explain to him that you've received his message and you'd like him to step away so uninvolved editors can weigh his opinions without anyone's involvement. Try that before approaching an admin. No one needs an admin with a gun to their head. My close empowers other admins with a new tool but it is not meant to be a first step. Give B2C a chance, on each discussion, to step away before asking an admin to make him step away. Seem fair?--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 14:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC) |
||
:::::::Definitely. Thanks again for a [[Judgment of Solomon|solomonic decision]]. --[[User:MelanieN|MelanieN]] ([[User talk:MelanieN|talk]]) 15:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|Sockpuppetry]] case== |
==[[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|Sockpuppetry]] case== |
Revision as of 15:03, 21 February 2013
USER PAGE | TALK PAGE | CONTRIBUTIONS | AWARDS | DASHBOARD | RECALL | MOTIVES | POLITICS | RTRC |
This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
You might get a kick out of this TP
Check this out. — - dain- talk 22:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
- Haha, I've seen that photo. That angle doesn't show you his desert combat boots.--v/r - TP 23:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Twinkle
Tom, as you probably know the TW rollback vandal feature, more specifically the abuse thereof, is a pet peeve of mine. I've requested the feature be removed here[1] and would like to invite you to comment. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 12:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
From the frequent messages I see here, you appear to be a database guru. How could I get a query to give me a list of the first 500 diffs starting at date/time X that have the TW vandalism message in the edit summary? I'd like to go through that list manually and identify the percentage of actual vandalism reverts vs "other" so I have some statistics to present for a possible RfC. Thanks. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 15:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Tom, thanks for the spreadsheet. I posted my findings on the TW talk page in case you are interested. little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer 06:00, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Reply
Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Human rights abuses in Kashmir's talk page. Mr T(Talk?) 16:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please go through my latest post. Thank you. Mr T(Talk?) 07:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
- There has been no modification to change the context. - I didn't accuse of anything if that is what you thought. BTW, you might want to go through my latest post on RegentsPark's talk. Thank you. Mr T(Talk?) 17:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't intend to accuse you of accusing me of doing that. I just meant that it's all together and I wasn't piecing together different parts of the source. I'll go read that in a sec, working on a close for something else atm.--v/r - TP 17:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I replied there.--v/r - TP 17:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, I didn't intend to accuse you of accusing me of doing that. I just meant that it's all together and I wasn't piecing together different parts of the source. I'll go read that in a sec, working on a close for something else atm.--v/r - TP 17:42, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- There has been no modification to change the context. - I didn't accuse of anything if that is what you thought. BTW, you might want to go through my latest post on RegentsPark's talk. Thank you. Mr T(Talk?) 17:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Please go through my latest post. Thank you. Mr T(Talk?) 07:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
--Cúchullain t/c 23:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
- Replied.--v/r - TP 23:57, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
B2C close
Seems like a fairly rational call. Hate when that happens. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ditto. Both counts. :) --regentspark (comment) 18:04, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think this was a very well thought out call. --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- On the first sentence ("preempt") did you mean "preface"?North8000 (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I did, thanks.--v/r - TP 18:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Just wanted to pile on and compliment you on the close. It's not what I would have preferred, but it's fair and well thought out. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- I did, thanks.--v/r - TP 18:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- On the first sentence ("preempt") did you mean "preface"?North8000 (talk) 18:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. I think this was a very well thought out call. --MelanieN (talk) 18:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Since I never hold back when I have an issue with an admin, it seems only fair that I would compliment a particularly astute action. Of course, life's not fair. NE Ent 18:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I think you should place a time limit on the sanction be in months or years. -- PBS (talk) 20:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. North8000 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, I hadn't though of that. But couldn't B2C just ask that the sanctions be removed in 6+ months if they are no longer needed?--v/r - TP 20:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, though you didn't mention that. Maybe just say 1 year and can ask to have it removed earlier? North8000 (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sure, I can do that. I just figured it was expected.--v/r - TP 20:49, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, though you didn't mention that. Maybe just say 1 year and can ask to have it removed earlier? North8000 (talk) 20:45, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Hmm, I hadn't though of that. But couldn't B2C just ask that the sanctions be removed in 6+ months if they are no longer needed?--v/r - TP 20:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting and creative close. I hope that a lesson can be learnt all around as a result of this episode. Thanks, -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 03:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence | ||
Accolades all around, for sure. Thanks for the kind and wise words and brilliant decision... not to mention putting an end to this quest with a very reasonable expectation from me. I don't believe we've ever crossed paths, but you jumped straight to the top of my list of favorite WP people with this one encounter. Thank you for your diligence in working this out. Born2cycle (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC) |
- Thank you. I'm glad to see that the close has received positive feedback from both sides. I hope this settles the matter.--v/r - TP 23:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi TParis. I've noticed what good work you do on en.WP; thank you. However, I couldn't help thinking that your acceptance of this barnstar was inappropriate, given the need for admins to maintain a professional distance from matters in which they will make or have made decisions. You can't stop B2C acting inappropriately (it's entirely inappropriate to "thank" someone in the way he has done—both the fact of the barnstar and the content of the accompanying text). But it would have been consistent with the conflict-of-interest expectations in the admin policy to have at least ignored it, and at best to have removed it and/or to have responded in a way that indicated you were unable to accept it. By analogy, patients can't be unethical, but doctors can. Please let me know if there's a conceptual query about what I've said here. Cheers and best wishes. Tony (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- TParis's actions on the case were completed at the time. I personally would not give a barnster to someone who just closed something that I was the subject of, but that's me. I see nothing wrong with TParis accepting it, but after that if I were TParis I would probably not have further involvement on the case as an admin or closer. North8000 (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- I understand your concern, Tony, by like North8000 said, I anticipate having no further involvement. I said in my close that I was putting a burden on my fellow admins. I think the opposite, to ignore, is a bit rude on my part. But I also want to make clear that I refrained from acknowledging any sort of compliment until I was sure both parties were satisfied. Other than addressing a concern North8000 had about a mistype and PBP about a time frame, I hadn't responded to anyone else. Once I saw bi-partisan approval, then I felt it was ok to respond to the above. I certainly did not want to give any appearance of favoring any side nor do I really want to get involved in the matter. My primary interest was cleaning up WP:AN and involved me archiving about a dozen RFC close requests as well. You words do ring in a part of my mind about professional distance, though, and I'll remember to distance myself appropriately next time.--v/r - TP 13:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Really? I figured you would be the administrator we would ask, if we thought B2C's contributions to a thread needed attention in the future. Precisely because you DO know all the background and wouldn't have to spend half an hour bringing yourself up to speed on the issues. No? --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- I know the background in as much as I read everyone's comments in that ANI thread, the previous ANI thread, and the Arbcom case. But no, I am not intimately aware of what B2C does. I've never personally been witness to it. It would be better for another admin to enforce it in case clarification is ever needed about the close. If I were to act on the close and then there was a question about interpretation, who would be responsible for clarifying it? I would be my own watcher.--v/r - TP 14:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the explanation. In case of future enforcement need, then (and I'm hoping there won't be any such need), should we ask some individual admin to look at it, or post the need somewhere? --MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ask an uninvolved admin or post on WP:ANI and reference the close. As you said in your OP post, though, B2C is receptive to being asked to step away. I don't think an administrative discussion ban will ever be necessary. What I strongly recommend is to do this: if B2C has explained his point, kindly explain to him that you've received his message and you'd like him to step away so uninvolved editors can weigh his opinions without anyone's involvement. Try that before approaching an admin. No one needs an admin with a gun to their head. My close empowers other admins with a new tool but it is not meant to be a first step. Give B2C a chance, on each discussion, to step away before asking an admin to make him step away. Seem fair?--v/r - TP 14:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Definitely. Thanks again for a solomonic decision. --MelanieN (talk) 15:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ask an uninvolved admin or post on WP:ANI and reference the close. As you said in your OP post, though, B2C is receptive to being asked to step away. I don't think an administrative discussion ban will ever be necessary. What I strongly recommend is to do this: if B2C has explained his point, kindly explain to him that you've received his message and you'd like him to step away so uninvolved editors can weigh his opinions without anyone's involvement. Try that before approaching an admin. No one needs an admin with a gun to their head. My close empowers other admins with a new tool but it is not meant to be a first step. Give B2C a chance, on each discussion, to step away before asking an admin to make him step away. Seem fair?--v/r - TP 14:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the explanation. In case of future enforcement need, then (and I'm hoping there won't be any such need), should we ask some individual admin to look at it, or post the need somewhere? --MelanieN (talk) 14:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- I know the background in as much as I read everyone's comments in that ANI thread, the previous ANI thread, and the Arbcom case. But no, I am not intimately aware of what B2C does. I've never personally been witness to it. It would be better for another admin to enforce it in case clarification is ever needed about the close. If I were to act on the close and then there was a question about interpretation, who would be responsible for clarifying it? I would be my own watcher.--v/r - TP 14:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Really? I figured you would be the administrator we would ask, if we thought B2C's contributions to a thread needed attention in the future. Precisely because you DO know all the background and wouldn't have to spend half an hour bringing yourself up to speed on the issues. No? --MelanieN (talk) 14:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- I understand your concern, Tony, by like North8000 said, I anticipate having no further involvement. I said in my close that I was putting a burden on my fellow admins. I think the opposite, to ignore, is a bit rude on my part. But I also want to make clear that I refrained from acknowledging any sort of compliment until I was sure both parties were satisfied. Other than addressing a concern North8000 had about a mistype and PBP about a time frame, I hadn't responded to anyone else. Once I saw bi-partisan approval, then I felt it was ok to respond to the above. I certainly did not want to give any appearance of favoring any side nor do I really want to get involved in the matter. My primary interest was cleaning up WP:AN and involved me archiving about a dozen RFC close requests as well. You words do ring in a part of my mind about professional distance, though, and I'll remember to distance myself appropriately next time.--v/r - TP 13:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JoshuSasori for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. elvenscout742 (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Obviously you aren't under investigation yourself. Just I mentioned your name in my comment and I figured I should let you know. If you want to post a comment I'm sure it would be welcome! (Especially considering I made reference to a private e-mail exchange I had with you.) elvenscout742 (talk) 01:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China's University and College Admission System (CUCAS)
Hi Tparis again,
As we talked on delection of CUCAS in Wikipedia on 5 feb 2013. First of all, Thank you for your early reply. I just want to explain what kind of company we are and Wikipedia is important to us because lots of our students told us they could not find CUCAS in Wikipedia. We do not want to use Wikipedia as a method to make advertisement because we have our own marketing and advertising channel. As you know, some companies, like IBM, also list in Wikipedia, if they are using Wikipedia as an advertising means? So we want to know what kind of contents will be regarded as advertisement-making and what kind of contents are permitted. In fact, we just provide the basic information about the compmay,such as when the company founded, which universities are our parternership ones, introduction to the location and so on. All in all, we need not use Wikipedia as a means to make any advertisement. So We hope you could restore our CUCAS in Wikipedia. Thank you very much and looking forward to your early reply. Sue — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suexiu (talk • contribs) 05:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
- Sue - IBM did not come to Wikipedia and write their own article. What are your independent sources?--v/r - TP 13:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)