Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kudpung (talk | contribs) at 17:06, 1 February 2015 (→RfC: AfC Helper Script access: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

2014 Year In Review Awards

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your 2014 contributions to multiple history related articles you are hereby award this Epic Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Calm down, please

These aren't the comments of the person that I thought would be great on ArbCom. Bugs is just making a joke; he does that, in case this is the first time you've "met" him. Some of them fall flat. He doesn't mean anything more by it. But more importantly, by taking a section that had nothing in it implying editors taking political sides before your first post, just a heads-up that a normally quiet article might become active, and injecting accusations out of nowhere, you're not helping. This is so unlike you. You used to be the guy that would come around with the fire extinguisher, not the gasoline. Please. I know you're burnt out fighting fires; fine. Let others fight them. Don't start them yourself, OK? --GRuban (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

May I have your permission to strike or just remove your comments entirely? --GRuban (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

My tact is waning as retirement draws near. Besides that, I just read Greek_government-debt_crisis#Alleged_pursuit_of_national_self-interest the other day which comes off as a European college student essay about the evils of capitalism adapted to fit on Misplaced Pages. My comments are freely licensed, anyone is allowed to remove them. I'm not one to fight someone with a cooler head than mine.--v/r - TP 20:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (talk page stalker) Gasoline? All I see is Bugs making an inappropriate joke and TP responding. Not exactly extinguishing, but definitely not fueling a fire. I don't see a reason for bringing this here to TP. Best solution for this is this: Don't make insulting jokes, and don't talk about politics of WP if it's not improving the encyclopedia. There, problem solved. Regards, --AmaryllisGardener 20:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Someone else closed the section, so it's all right. While you have the mop, though, you might want to semi-protect Molly White (Texas politician), as it has just been repeatedly hit by a persistent IP. Or you can block the IP, he's earned a large number of warnings by someone with faster fingers than I have. --GRuban (talk) 20:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@AmaryllisGardener - I don't really mind it if someone wants to say they disagree with something I am doing. Thanks for the cover, though.--v/r - TP 20:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, was that really necessary? I knew someone would be around sooner or later to mess with it, and by turning it into an us-vs-them thread, you might have reduced the eyes on the article to keep it under control. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm jaded, you've been there.--v/r - TP 20:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I realize this might not be the popular thing to say, but I like this TParis better than the old one. You know where he stands on things. Viriditas (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Heh, I try to be flexible in my stances - though.--v/r - TP 20:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

cmt

If there's something you feel is wrong that can be put right by administrative actions, then I will respect and honor that. Otherwise the "he said - she said" crap needs to stop. I hope you know from past interactions that I have a ton of respect for you, but the current situation needs to stop now. Your page, you have the last word. — Ched :  ?  23:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

What needs to happen is a conversation about what we expect from one another on this project and I get increasingly frustrated when that conversation gets shutdown. Until that conversation happens, though, admin actions will only be more disruptive.--v/r - TP 23:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

The thing is that this type of situation has become so inflamed that good editors are becoming frustrated. That leads to people saying things in ways that aren't acceptable here. We're supposed to be a project providing knowledge, not a social commentary site. As admins, we should be trying to put fires out - not throwing fuel on them. Posting "look what he/she said" on another admins page doesn't further the goal. If another admin. is working on something, and you think there's something they missed - then drop them an email. I know that bickering is part of the wiki-culture, but this is/has gotten way out of hand. Sorry - it is your talk page, say your piece and I'll not bother you further. — Ched :  ?  00:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome to keep commenting if you choose to. I don't mind continuing a conversation with people I disagree with who are willing to discuss the meta issues. The facts as I see them are that I do not see that anyone had actually done the homework on the number of times Cassianto had 'retired'. So - I raised a new fact of the case to demonstrate that this wasn't the end but actually a pattern of behavior. I believe my comment was relevant and accurate. Now, if you feel I should have done it in private - that would be a personal preference of yours that I might be willing to go along with if you felt it was less disruptive. But clearly, at least I have demonstrated that all of the facts were not discussed but rather that discussion stopped when Cassianto mentioned retirement. We have a culture that respects people's honest efforts to disengage but because of that culture we've created an opportunity for folks who do not honestly wish to retire but wish to take advantage of that opportunity. That is what is happening here. Unfortunately, any attempt to discuss actual indisputable facts, like the number of times Cassianto has retired under a cloud, is run over by those who have nothing but anecdotes and their shock that their friend could be in trouble. Not everyone fits into that category, but the category is sufficiently noisy that it drowns out the rest of the conversation. There is generally a likewise noisy crowd of enemies as well. Either crowd - the conversation doesn't get to happen because it is consistently derailed.--v/r - TP 00:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why "the number of times someone has "retired" is an issue. What the HELL has that got to do with anything? Lord knows I've felt like posting that template on my page on a daily basis at times. So WHAT if he/she posted some template to his/her own page and went about editing articles - more power to them. — Ched :  ?  00:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

It's got everything to do with this issue. "Retirement" is being abused to avoid scrutiny, and if you can't recognize that, then I suggest you need to think about it a bit more. TParis is correct on this issue. What is troubling is that other editors and admins still refuse to recognize the problem. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

If they are not posting while not logged in, or under a different name (sock), then how is it avoiding scrutiny? A users contribs are clearly definable, and if they add their sig to something it's not avoiding anything. And FYI - I HAVE thought about it. — Ched :  ?  01:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Ched, either you have misunderstood what has been said or you are addressing another topic altogether; I'm sorry, but I cannot parse your comment. Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Ched - in my earlier comment I said that we've developed a culture of ceasing our investigations into concerns at AN and ANI when a user retires. Some users have taken advantage of our cultural norm and they'll retire just so that scrutiny stops but then return as soon as possible.--v/r - TP 04:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

So people are not allowed to change their mind on waking away? I would have thought that it was a good thing that people walked away for a break, and returned in a better frame of mind. There is no "avoiding scrutiny" - the editor in question has not ever returned under a different name, or when not logged in (afaik), so there is ample opportunity for scrutiny for each edit they have made. To claim the editor if trying to avoid scrutiny is, I'm afraid, utter tosh: a number of the diffs you posted were wikibreaks, not retirements and they were not under clouds, they were for RL reasons. I'm not seeing much in the way of GF here, or of getting some basic facts right before posting into an inflammatory atmosphere. Certainly one or two disruptive elements sadly picked up on your post there and here, which is dragging this whole sorry saga out even further! – SchroCat (talk) 09:31, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

You are intentionally ignoring my argument because it conflicts with yours. You chose to believe that the system cannot, has not, and will not be abused - and even if it is that your favorite wouldn't possibly ever do that. Clearly, you have a bias because the basis of your argument is that your favorite person is a good person and you cannot believe in the possibility of them being anything other than that. When we show a pattern of behavior, there is no need for good faith. Good faith exists when it happens once, twice, or three times. You're trying to excuse seven "retirements" as good faith. Seven retirements under a cloud where he came back weeks or a few months later. When you are ready to discuss the possibility that you are wrong, you may come back to discuss this with me. If you notice my comments above, I'm only willing to change my opinion if you are willing to change yours. Ched, Viriditas, NE Ent, and others have come here to be open minded and actually discuss this. You've come here to be right. I'm not interested in that and I won't apologize for providing new facts for others to discuss.--v/r - TP 17:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for not taking on board what I have said. There are no 'seven "retirements"': as I have said above, you also selected Wikibreaks for holidays and being busy at work. For the majority of each of those breaks there was no cloud to be under, and you are smearing without the basis of correct facts. It's a shame you didn't take that on board, or that you think that I've "come here to be right": I find the lack of good faith saddening. I'm always happy to discuss things woith people, but - and you may or not find this ironic - only with people who are open to listening and taking things on board. You have decided not to take on board something where you have made an error, and that's fine, but a bit of a shame. If you look into those diffs again and decide you maybe judged some of them too rashly, I'll be happy to talk further, otherwise I'll just move on. - SchroCat (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Your comment here

• What I'm more concerned about is that you appear to have just recused yourself from any admin action, ever, involving politics. I have a great amount of respect for you, but was that wise? Black Kite (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see that. If anything, it makes him more human, rather than someone pretending to be neutral and never sharing an opinion. While I disagree with his point, it is still a valid point, and I don't see how it could impact his admin duties. Today is a special day because TParis has stood up for the civility policy while many admins continue to remain silent or refuse to enforce it. TParis has let the community know where he stands on this, and that makes him a better admin and someone I can more fully trust, even though I disagree with his opinion on some topics. Which brings us back to point of derailment, yet again. Why, Black Kite, did you bring up something he said about politics in a thread about civility? Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, I meant to put it in as separate section. But to answer your question, because I worry it could be brought back to haunt him by other editors. I totally agree on the civility issue, but by posting things like that, if in future TP blocks someone on the "left"/"liberal"/whatever side of a dispute, they're not going to have the authority that they would have had otherwise. If someone of ArbCom had posted that diff, they'd have had to recuse from every politics-based case that came up. It's not a criticism, I just think it's unwise. Black Kite (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I accept your POV but it's still derailing from this thread.. In any case, I think TParis' comments were pretty tame, as they were more rhetorical than anything else. I much prefer my admins to speak their mind than to hold their tongue. Like I said, even though I disagree with him, I feel I can trust him more because he's not afraid to let people know how he feels on a topic. And frankly, while I disagree with his opinion, he is certainly representing a significant POV that feels Misplaced Pages has a liberal bias. Now, as you may know, I have spent the last decade fighting against this POV, and I believe it is entirely wrong. But, that doesn't mean people can't hold wrong opinions, and if we are going to live in free societies, we must be able to share our ideas without filtering and self-censorship. This is why I support TParis's right to speak freely. I've seen him block liberal and conservative editors in equal measure, so my faith in his neutrality as an admin remains as strong as ever. And that's an opinion coming from someone who does not identify as a conservative. I like my admins to be human, not unfeeling robots who pretend to be neutral. Good admins recognize their bias and act neutrally in spite of it. That's the real measure of excellence. Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you. However, I'm sure you'll realise that as soon as you "reveal" your worldview here, it can be used against you. And that can be especially problematic for an admin. Anyway, this probably isn't helping build the encyclopedia, so I'll leave it there. Goodnight. Black Kite (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Black Kite - I'm in the middle of drafting a retirement speech which will address your concern specifically. In my speech, I am not waving vague accusations of neutrality violations, I'm going to back it up and show an inconsistency with BLP articles and negative information during election years. However, in regards to your question, I believe it's quite clear that I'm on the out. I've barely used the tools in about a year and less so in the last 2 months. My last block, however, was actually of a right-wing anti-abortion conservative. I'm not a conservative, or at least I don't self define as one. I believe I appear conservative because I am to the right of the general Misplaced Pages populace. However, isidewith.com has me center-left. I personally identify as a libertarian and I've blocked other libertarians (MilesMoney was the most notable, I believe). I disagree strongly with conservatives on social issues like LGBT-rights, abortion, ect. Either way, we won't see another Congressional election nor a general election for almost two years. By then, I'll be a memory and folks will be saying "hey, remember that one guy". That said, understand that my politics are not what they appear to be. I generally speak up when I see injustice and unfairness. I'm speaking up now because, having patrolled political articles since the 2012 election, I've personally witnessed from the outside the kind of double standards regarding UNDUE and IRS. I've already detailed them on this page to our mutual friend Gamaliel and his response wasn't what I hoped for but it was, nontheless, respectable. He said that he could find similar anecdotes proving the opposite. I believe that Misplaced Pages has widespread biases in all sorts of directions on all sorts of topics. Conservative bias on religion, western bias on the Cold War and Pearl Harbor, white-male bias on most articles, ect. With regard to politics, outside of economics, I see a widespread liberal bias. On economics articles there is generally a socialist-libertarian battle that has deadlocked. Either way, my main concern is BLPs and the misuse of UNDUE and IRS to both whitewash liberal politicians while simultaneously trashing conservatives. And Baseball Bugs' open hostility toward conservatives should prove the point. Concern that he could be condemned for openly hostile remarks against conservatives doesn't even enter his mind because it is accepted behavior here.--v/r - TP 04:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker)First, I'm here to change your opinion. I understand that you refuse to change your opinion unless my own opinion is available for change as well. It is. I would rather that you take an undeclared break (no "I'm retiring if..." drama) than make any move that has you affirmatively "leaving". WP needs editors and admins that are "right" of the majority. It's not about fighting every fight (I know), but it is about trimming the rudder. Without relatively level heads like yours, things are only going left-er. We don't need that. I (and you, and many others) have spent man-years editing this thing. Ultimately, it will go the way of myspace. Before then, it would be fulfilling (for selfish me) if it at least stayed somewhere near the middle. I hope you change your opinion, and I hope you write a retirement speech and give it to someone else. Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'll read this later because I'm on my way downstairs to play video games. But just one note: my retirement has been planned for quite some months and I've been writing my going-away speech for a few weeks. I'm certainly not starting any "I'm retiring if..." kind of stuff.--v/r - TP 04:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, and enjoy! --Tgeairn (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

TParis, would you consider the possibility that you misread Baseball Bugs comments? I don't think he was displaying "open hostility to conservatives" at all. He was making a stereotypical joke about Texas. Now, because you are from Texas (I think), you might not find that funny. But, let's assume Bugs is from NYC (I think). Then, you can begin to see why he thinks this is funny. So, this has more to do with stereotypes, comedy, and regional rivalry than it does with politics. Now, let's be perfectly clear. In any academic discussion about racism in the United States, Texas comes somewhere near the top of the list. That's what Baseball Bugs was pointing to, not politics. Now, if you're from Texas, you might find that insulting. And as you know, because of direct flights, we have a lot of Texans in Hawaii, and they're a mighty fine and upstanding people. So, it's perfectly understandable that his comment would upset you. But this isn't about politics. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There is always the possibility that I am wrong. And the possibility is always quite large no matter the subject. I've seen Baseball Bugs making bigoted comments himself about trans people so who knows.--v/r - TP 18:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

To make my point another way, if I was from Texas, I would probably have had a similar reaction. The implication of the joke is that everyone from Texas is racist. But, you and I know that isn't true. Still, it is a trope found in the comedic lexicon. Doesn't mean it's right. It's like joking that everyone from San Francisco is gay or liberal. Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Civility stuff

I agree with you that it would be better if Misplaced Pages had an actual civility policy instead of a civility meme we vaguely wave our hand at. User:NE_Ent/Notes_on_civility (bottom) lists the various community civility consensus failures. Unfortunately, that battle can not be won by individual administrators blocking inconsistently, nor by pile-ons on particular kerfuffles. With regards to Cassianto, taking breaks is not only not against policy, it's often a good idea, one I've done myself from time to time (I just usually don't do melodramatic retired et. al. messages -- my breaks are due to needing more real life time and less wiki time). All we can do is model appropriate behavior ourselves, and push firmly but gently against the incivility of others. NE Ent 02:48, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The lack of civility in talk space is (unfortunately) pretty well established, but the lack of civility in actual article space is rapidly becoming the issue. The GG issues weren't just talk space, for instance. Or, I've now wasted months of my editing with the Landmark Worldwide articles where the talk pages were always vitriolic, but now it's fully in the actual articles. It's just not why I'm here, or what this project was for. Count this stalker comment as a !vote in favor of admins pushing firmly against the incivility of others. --Tgeairn (talk) 02:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's time for incivility in talk namespaces to end. I don't get why we have policies against personal attacks and incivility, but then people are treated like idiots when they point out a violation of the policies. Also, enough of the FA/GA/"valuable" contributor immunity to blocks when they are not civil. I won't mention names, but I can think of three cases of this type of immunity from blocks. Should the civility that a user practices (or does not practice) only be assessed at RfAs? I think not. Start the movement! --AmaryllisGardener 03:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Best thing we can do is be the movement. That's why I recommend reporting incivility to ANI, if and only if you try to peacefully resolve the problem with the user first and nothing happens. I realize that NE Ent and others might not support that, but I think the habit of blaming the reporter of the incivility needs to end. For too long we've seen admins and editors who side with them create a chilling effect when it comes to civility reporting, often trying to create a boomerang on the reporter when there isn't one. I also strongly disagree with NE Ent's main point that civility is difficult to define because it means different things to different people. When you analyze that argument closely, it falls apart. Schools and workplaces have no problem defining civility and neither should we. Viriditas (talk) 03:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• It appears I have just spent the entire day griping about stuff that other users have found me to be disruptive. So, for the rest of the night, I am going to go play Destiny.--v/r - TP 04:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I certainly did not say, and am not saying, you're disruptive. Hope Destiny was fun. NE Ent 10:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not taking it offensively, my blood was boiling yesterday. Mix that with my talk page blowing up and I know I am attracting attention which isn't a good thing. Anywho, I got Gjallarhorn from a legendary engram so I'm happy with my decision to go play.--v/r - TP 17:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Book recommendation

Have you read The Martian? It's uphill for the first 50 or so pages, but after that, it's downhill all the way. It's a really fast read. I think you would really like it. Viriditas (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't. And I'm right between books right now. I'll pick it up and check it out.--v/r - TP 19:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: AfC Helper Script access

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)