Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:23, 5 December 2014

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

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Image

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

30 year old campaign and still running.

So. Fucking. What.

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

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

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

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

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

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

ANI

]

Ford Island recognition of your personal effort in FAing it in time for 7 XII 2014 as you set out to do

And you did it, Tom! Your heroic effort to get it done, mostly through your edits, and to get it done in time for the article to feature as a Featured Article on the Main Page on the anniversary of the day that shall forever live in infamy, well. Tom, for this you deserve a star of its own joy and designing. Allow me:

--Mareklug 11:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. It was a team effort with you, Mark Miller, Minniapolis, Dank, Peacemaker67, Crisco 1492, Nikkimaria, Hawkeye, and many other reviewers who put in a lot of effort to critique the thing. Very happy how so many people came together on this to help us get it on the main page. My only hope now, the thing I fear I could have done wrong, is that I treated the ancient Hawaii section with enough respect, dignity, and understanding so that I do not offend.--v/r - TP 17:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

RFA

I noticed you nominated Czar for adminship, which was successful, and Sarahj2107, which almost certainly will be successful too. Would you consider nominating me? Everymorning talk to me 16:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I can mostly definitely do a review and we can see where we go from there. I'll email it to you. There is one review ahead of you at the moment.--v/r - TP 17:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell

You posted at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell:

Per Hell in a Bucket's insistence that I find the exact edits, here are all the ones dealing with Carolmooredc and Lightbreather - I hope this settles the matter as there were plenty and easy to find: . There are more, but I think I made my point.--v/r - TP 02:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• TParis: This is the content of the links you provided above to provide the exact edits dealing with Carolmooredc and Lightbreather posted by EChastain:

1. @Carolmooredc: This one also looks useful: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject, if you haven't seen it. EChastain (talk) 5:22 pm, 26 October 2014, Sunday (1 month, 7 days ago) (UTC−4)
2. @Carolmooredc Is the c word a gender-related slur when said to a male? According to the evidence provided by User:Patrol forty, in his section Eric Corbett's use of the C-word, "In the last 6 months, Eric has twice used the C-Word in way that is unambiguously intended at a direct personal insult: and ." Are these diffs referring to males also gender-related slurs? I'm unclear. EChastain (talk) 5:05 pm, 28 October 2014, Tuesday (1 month, 5 days ago) (UTC−4)]
3. @Carolmooredc:, Evergreenfir is correct on that point? Mind reading Eric's thinking processes? Could you define what "acting like one" is in that statement. I wouldn't take her word for any of this. According to EvergreenFir on Mansplaining: "The people who "decide" it's a social phenomenon would be the scholars that write about it." What scholars wrote about Mansplaining that EvergreenFir considers it a social phenomenon rather than a derogatory term? EChastain (talk) 6:47 pm, 28 October 2014, Tuesday (1 month, 5 days ago) (UTC−4)
4. @Carolmooredc: I don't see anything in Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Getting_into_fights that will help with fighting. It basically says for: "Fighting with other WikiProjects or unaffiliated editors: No project can control another project or other editor", and "In disputes with another project or with editors outside your project, your only effective tool is negotiation. If you need the cooperation of another project, approach them in a spirit of cooperation and look for appropriate compromises." EChastain (talk) 4:23 pm, 29 October 2014, Wednesday (1 month, 4 days ago) (UTC−4)
5. @Carolmooredc: I'm not saying anything about the five pillars. I only quoted you from a member of the Wikiproject Council responding to a question about specific procedures to deal with "editors I believe you would have to take it up with them if you want them to modify their scope to include procedures you want them to have to deal with editors having problems. They do stress that they have no control over editors or conflict between projects. EChastain (talk) 7:47 pm, 29 October 2014, Wednesday (1 month, 4 days ago) (UTC−4)]
6. @Carolmooredc: I think you've misrepresented Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject#Getting_into_fights. Under the bullet point Fighting with other WikiProjects or unaffiliated editors, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject says:No project can control another project or other editor: No project can demand that another project support an article, change its scope, quit working on an article, or otherwise do what you want. Disputes may arise between projects or outside editors over formatting, such as the preferred system for organizing an article or the contents of a template. Disputes may also arise over quality standards. In disputes with another project or with editors outside your project, your only effective tool is negotiation. (emphasis added)

   I think the link give above to ANI Disruption of WikiProject as support for Locus of dispute is unfortunate. To me it demonstrates that some supporters of GGTF lack knowledge of what a personal attack is and provide diffs that are no such thing. Accusing editors of personal attacks with diffs that are clearly do not support the charge is likely to reduce the credibility of the task force complaints. And it doesn't support the Locus of dispute: "The main focus of this arbitration should be the bad faith editor behavior which disrupted the project." EChastain (talk) 1:35 pm, 30 October 2014, Thursday (1 month, 3 days ago) (UTC-4)

7. @Carolmooredc:: Patrol forty is indefinitely blocked. Block log:

• 22:16, 25 October 2014 Adjwilley (talk | contribs) blocked Patrol forty (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia)

• 10:51, 26 October 2014 Bdd23 (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Patrol forty (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite (Revoking talk page access: inappropriate use of user talk page while blocked: Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia)

• 23:43, 3 November 2014 Courcelles (talk | contribs) changed block settings for Patrol forty (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) with an expiry time of indefinite ({{checkuserblock-account}}: Clearly not here to contribute to building the encyclopedia)

Note to Carolmooredc: CheckUsers are privy to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy

Carolemooredc, have you read Patrol forty's talk page? Do you think, given the checkuserblock-account, the revocation of Patrol forty's talk page access, his posts on his talk page, etc. that you are using good judgment by choosing this diff of Patrol forty's evidence to support your views (as you did above?)

Problems with your diffs: As you so often do, your diff to Patrol's evidence isn't precise, forcing the conciencous reader to hunt through long and confusing pages for the evidence you claim to cite, for example long ANI pages (and when I've read them I've found you've misrepresented the evidence) and likewise when you cite your Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/related resources which seems to becoming a link farm (it would be an effort to read through the long list of questionably relevant articles, and then read the actual articles to see if anything you mention as fact was reliably supported by an independent source or even relevant to the Gender Gap on wikipedia.

You know how to provide specific diffs like this:this specific diff because I've seen you do it before.

Re arbs and other editors: I am wondering if many, including arbs don't have the time it takes to get through the long and confusing pages you cite to evaluate even one of your statements, so they assume you are validly supporting your "evidence" which would take many days. And especially a problem is your constant changing of your evidence (and perhaps your comments too, as I can't continually check) without notice, so what I read and react to may not be the same post after your perpetual revisions. EChastain (talk) 12:36 pm, 15 November 2014, Saturday (17 days ago) (UTC-5)

• TParis, None of these diffs are related to Lightbreather.

• Examples of some diffs left out:

1. @Neotarf: Regarding Eric Corbett, when verifying your
2. @Carolmooredc: This one also looks useful: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject, if you haven't seen it. Has bunches of formating code and other stuff. EChastain (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
3. @EChastain. Thanks for noticing I someone how presented the wrong diff. [https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Dank&diff=610430217&oldid=610428436 This is the diff of Eric Corbett saying to Dank: "I see, you're the cunt I always thought you were. " If the Arbitrators have not seen fit to remove Patrol Forty's diffs, I have a perfect right to use the diff. There's no guilt by association here.

   If the Arbitrators have a problem with other evidence, they can ask me a question. The Resources link was an invitation for people here to look at the research themselves instead of asking people for their interpretation of evidence. If people care about the issue they will. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 1:14 pm, 15 November 2014, Saturday (17 days ago) (UTC-5)

@Carolmooredc I guess that means that no one else checks your diffs! And that you don't either to see if they're correct!! And that you have no scruples using evidence that you know is tainted by a CheckUser finding, and didn't even bother to read Patrol forty's talk page. Rather, as usual, you expect others to do the checking: "The Resources link was an invitation for people here to look at the research themselves instead of asking people for their interpretation of evidence." (As if you haven't done an insane amount of "interpreting" already in this arbcom.)

This is your usual MO, as you've done with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/related resources, always saying things like you have no time, real life issues intervene, will complete in a few days, etc.

I've noticed that you frequently reply to comments by answering only the least relevant one, or by changing the subject. Here you evaded my overall comments about your links to huge pages like ANI#Disruption_of_Wikiproject which you cited as evidence of bad faith editors and of the "Locus of dispute", and which I posted to you before as a horrendous page that you seem to expect editors to go through and which doesn't support your statements; Nor did you give relevant responses to my other comments at that time to you

You misrepresented what Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Guide says and misunderstood the guide to mean that "this guide which only mentions "negotiation" overrides one of the five pillars, which includes civility and dispute resolution? Obviously the Guide has to be beefed up to reflect that fact." And you didn't even check Patrol forty's talk page. Do you make any effort to check out anything with even minimal investigation? I don't see any evidence that you do. From what I've seen, you usually misrepresent/misunderstand a great bit of the time.

It's also annoying that you took my suggestions for links to the Project Council/Guide, and presented them as your suggestions.

You also say: "The only thing I say about the "Getting into fights" section in this "Locus of dispute" section is that “unaffiliated editors” can be the source of fights." I wasn't discussing negotiation or dispute resolution, so I can't be misrepresenting anything, can I? And I agree that "The main focus of this arbitration should be the bad faith editor behavior which disrupted the project." But you can't understand bad faith behavior without understanding possible motivations. The Disruption ANI was how it looked at the time. My original evidence here was a timeline. Understanding of the motivations for the disruption - including through collection of diffs and seeing others' diffs - is an evolving process. Thus this later analysis to help Arbitrators understand that strong and even hostile POVs against the GGTF drove editors to their bad and disruptive behavior.

I never said I thought the main "Locus of dispute" should be the bad faith editor behavior which disrupted the project.

All I can say in response to all of this is to ask if you are considered a quality editor here? If so, I'm disillusioned. You didn't follow the suggestions of the Project Counsel/Guide to be sure to define the scope before you open your project or task force or whatever. If you'd done that adequately, and followed their other suggestions, this arbcom probably would have been unnecessary.

I quoted from a member of the Wikiproject Council responding to a question about specific procedures to deal with "editors have a problem with the scope or activities of a Wikiproject that cannot be resolved at the talk page". Then I found out you, Carolmooredc was the editor who posted the question there! I have trouble believing wikipedia is this inept. (Sorry if this comment offends, but I'm surprised at what I'm seeing here.) EChastain (talk) 4:06 pm, 15 November 2014, Saturday (17 days ago) (UTC−5)] TParis, I can add more diffs, but in no instance did I add evidence pertaining to Lightbreather, nor address any comments to her. I admit I probably overdid it regarding Carolmooredc, and in retrospect I wish I had posted much, much less. But I was mindblown at her misunderstandings and misrepresentations shown in her evidence. And I was frustrated she did not answered my questions directly, but evaded, changed the subject, deflected to other issues etc. I eventually gave up the attempt to get a straight answer out of her. My apologies for this long post. Thanks, EChastain (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You've admitted to not being a new user, fair enough. But I'm convinced that you are a clean start and that you have pursued an old dispute. I'm fairly convinced you are Sue even if you have managed to avoid some of the areas of conflict Sue had while participating in others. Now, the question is, who are you if not Sue? Carolmooredc seems to think you may be someone else - I don't know who she has in mind. You don't seem to be arguing that you're not a failed clean start, you seem to be arguing that you're not a failed clean start of Sue. So, what do you propose we do from here?--v/r - TP 17:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Really? That I'm Sue Rangell? I've never come across her. Could you enlighten me as to what that "old dispute" is? (You think it's gun control or the Israel/Palestine issue?) Do you think it's ok that Lightbreather continue to add "evidence" against me on her talk that's frankly ridiculous. At least EvergreenFir verified that she was the one that used the word "sigh" in an edit summary, so that piece of evidence purporting to connect me to Sue Rangell is out (maybe, or will they find a way to morph it into something I did anyway)? I guess I'll have to start reading archives and more arbcom cases to try to figure out what's happening. EChastain (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

i've looked under gun control arbcom and can't see where Sue Rangell is involved. Couldn't find the Israeli/Palestine arbcom. Frankly I'd never heard of any of the editors of the GGTF or even the GGTF its self until I came across Neotarf's "cunt, nigger" post on NYB's page and was incredulous that this could happen on wiki at all. There seems to be a plan to hound me until they find something they can pin on me. Maybe Carolmooredc and Lightbreather need a villain - whatever Carolmooredc and Lightbreather can make stick.

Just found a link to the mailing list. It's really depressing. I guess this time I'm going to see a whole new side of wikipedia I never knew about before. Oh well. It doesn't matter what happens if I'm going to be banned by hook or by crook, so I'll dump any serious editing plans, cancel my book orders until I see if I can stand the harassment.

The last arbcom case I followed was Sexology and this GGTF case really reminds me of that one. On the mailing list, there's descriptions of all the attempts made to figure out who Eric Corbett is, and all they could find was that his family set up a trust for ferrets. WOW!

I rue I outed myself as a female, and if by any chance I'm not railroaded and harassed off wiki by Lighbreather et al, I'll ask for a renaming so my sex won't be known.

But, hey, if you could point me to places to look to find out the backstory to all this, I'd really appreciate it.

Why was it not ok for Jokestress to bring in off-wiki disputes onto wiki, but it's ok for the GGTF folk to do it openly, and even opening spam twitter accounts and openly try to out Eric Corbett? This place has really changed since I last looked in. Cheers! EChastain (talk) 01:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Here and Here are where Sue intersected with Lightbreather and Carolmooredc.--v/r - TP 01:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

So you're suggesting that I study those lists and avoid all articles/ interactions on them? EChastain (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No, once the SPI comes back negative you can completely ignore all of this. Tparis is just using that as reasons he thinks you are said person. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Email sent

BusterD (talk) 05:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Does "civility" excuse misuse of information?

It appears to me that you may feel like you havea guilty conscience re Lightbreather:

• A heartfelt request by Lightbreather on your talk on 27-11-2014 "you have been someone I've admired from very early on, because you always seemed to make fair assessments of situations.", "I have never considered you sexist, but the hyper-sensitivity that you're showing on the subject is puzzling." etc.
• Just look at Lightbreather's comments below - she was right about me making unfair arguments made 27-11-2014 in response by TParis (though you noted only one of your nine comments was unfair, and the rest were directi quotes from her.
• Post turkey wrap up by Lightbreather on 28-11-2014

I don't understand these post by you and Lightbreather, but it suggests to me that you many be WP:INVOLVED.

And when posting her allegations on Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Sue Rangell and updating them without noting that it was a revised edition, and without notifying me, was extremely confusing - I thought I must have Alzhimer's. (Even though I'm a new account, do I deserve no regard in your eyes?) I've looked through her archives and see many examples of this kind of thing (like requests to remove of comments of others after pleas that her feeling were hurt). EChastain (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

1) I am not WP:INVOLVED by any sense of the word having never interacted with you before at all. Nor does WP:INVOLVED apply as I've never taken nor threatened to take an administrator action with regards to you. And your misuse of policy really makes you seem more and more like Sue. 2) No revisions were made since Lightbreather's commets were not the basis of the SPI. They were my own comments. 3) You were notified.--v/r - TP 16:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)