The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

TParis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)[edit]

Scheduled to end 19:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC) or earlier.

NOTE: Ending early as editor has retired. Mkdwtalk 06:05, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a full two years since my last administrator review. We're accountable to the community and this venue provides an opportunity for transparency and accountability. Please feel free to be critical. I'll try to respond openly and honestly. My responsive tone will match the reviewer's tone. Respect will be met with respect, snark with snark, dickishness with dickishness, and pleasantries with pleasantries. Thanks.--v/r - TP 19:08, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I've been spending a bit of time monitoring and contributing to AN/I. I've noticed that you tend to copy-paste your response into the edit summary, including the colons. But you make good points. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 20:35, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I sure do. Edits summaries are supposed to help us locate who did what edit. I find copy/pasting to be the best way to do this. If you ever needed to find a diff of when I said something, you can see the beginning of the edit in the edit summary. I post the colons for speed. Much easier to highlight from the beginning than navigate the mouse 6 characters over. Saves me seconds, I suppose, but I do like pennies.--v/r - TP 20:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you were really doing a good job trying to help BDB, and I'd like to thank you for trying to be a bridge between us and them, despite the fanatics. Whatever happens from here is really up to them, not you or me. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 23:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I question whether TParis understands or believes that diversity is an asset to the Wikipedia community. He has demonstrated a frankly disturbing insensitivity to segments of it.

TParis' passivity throughout the Jews and Communism dispute and his request that Jehochman unblock Director and Producer was enormously insensitive to Wikipedia's Jewish editors and, for that matter, all its editors who find Antisemitism repellant. Let's not pretend that Director didn't spend 3 months defending an article that advanced a premise used by no less than Adolf Hitler to justify the Holocaust.

TParis' recent decision to congratulate Obiwankenobi on his "NPOV" was also seriously regrettable. Obi is not a monster, but the bulk of his edits pertain to pet issues and causes of Men's Rights Activists, an often virulently misogynistic movement that has feminist editors here blanking their user pages for fear of off-site harassment.

Being a good admin doesn't merely require keeping one's cool and (technically) playing by the rules. Admins are ultimately responsible for ensuring Wikipedia's ethical integrity and that editors from a range of backgrounds feel welcome here. TParis has been frighteningly indifferent to this aspect of his responsibilities. He needs to do much better as a leader and example to other editors.--Atlantictire (talk) 02:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take it under advisement that my approach can seem insensitive on the surface.--v/r - TP 23:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Are you calling me an antisemitic? Regardless, admins are encouraged to be indifferent and disinterested. I'll take your description of me as passive as a good quality.--v/r - TP 03:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disinterestedness may be commendable in an admin, but indifference might not be. In this matter, I believe Atlantictire is saying that P appeared indifferent to the integrity of the encyclopedia, which is not entirely a good quality. The defense of Director was, in the event, indefensible; it assisted foes of the project’s integrity and dismayed those who wish the project well. (I disagree with Atlantictire that this was insensitive specifically to Jewish editors; I would say, rather, that it was insensitive to all editors who believe that anti-Semitic canards have no place in Wikipedia.) MarkBernstein (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Director has a history of opposing racism in Eastern European topics and sticking strictly to the sources. It is not a stretch, and indeed Director remains unblocked to this day, that he was simply mistaken here and did not have racist or antisemitic intentions. He also has a history of having very passionate SPAs opposing him which easily accounts for his battleground attitude. This was a mistake by a good editor who has a history of anti-racism behavior to judge him by.--v/r - TP 20:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I read that article and instantly knew what it was. The fact remains that it was conclusively shown to have been plagiarized from hate literature. The fact also remains that Director vociferously defended it for months like it was his full time job, despite being constantly told what it was. Also, he engaged in severe battleground and own behavior. Sorry, but this is heck of a job Brownie. There's no excuse for admin failure here.--Atlantictire (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You read the article, you didn't review Director's contributions. The article was racist - that didn't mean that Director was. You need to look at Director as a whole. As a whole, he has persistently opposed racism and ethnic discrimination. He screwed up here.--v/r - TP 21:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the surface? Also in its deleterious effect on the project. In my opinion, this in itself approaches the bar for disqualification. But I've abandoned hope; I wash my hands. MarkBernstein (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the Banc de Binary kerfuffle, TParis demonstrated poor judgment by defending editors whose behavior was so disruptive, including multiple sockpuppeting, that they were blocked and site-banned. He seemed more concerned by the BDB editors' ability to project their interests onto Wikipedia than he was by the problems they caused his fellow editors. Over time his view appeared to meld into the consensus that these editors were beyond hope, but he was slow to realize what was obvious to everyone else, and throughout seemed callous and insensitive to the problems that they were causing the project.

TParis is among the most unpleasant people I have encountered on Wikipedia. He is thin-skinned and abrasive, seems to nurse his grudges, and at times his behavior crosses the line into ad hominem gratuitous comments directed at other editors. This pointless remark on the COI talk page yesterday is all too typical. Administrators need to model good behavior, not push at the edges of bad behavior. I think that he needs to display some introspection and some real, sincere, desire to improve. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say in my limited interactions with TParis, I've found him to be a reasonably honest interlocutor, in that he actually believes the things he says. These days I'm finding myself grateful just for that, which I suppose is pretty bleak. Agree with you about the insensitivity and indifference. It sounds like he's willing to work on it, though.--Atlantictire (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly don't doubt his sincerity. My concern mainly lies in the areas of judgement and civility. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Serves me right to volunteer for this process while involved in several disputes - but please do forgive me if I take your advice with a grain of salt. You've failed to see beyond your own viewpoint and put your hat in the ring with a radical opponent to COI editing who has made changes to a guideline w/o consensus. I've asked you and the other two to obey policy and the reaction to that was "what policy", "where", "who says" ect. That is classic WP:IDHT behavior and is disruptive. CorporateM made a very honest and personal expression of his own experience and instead of addressing it, the user that diff is in response to choose to act as if CorporateM made an outlandish claim - instead of the quite real remark from personal experience which the other user lacks entirely (for better or worse). It doesn't get more IDHT than that when a user chooses to ignore an argument altogether instead of addressing it. The community has begun to intercede and you three are now a minority on that talk page. Please do not vent that frustration out on me. I warned you early who you were getting involved with. This is not to be nasty, this is a effort to get you to open your eyes. As far as BDB goes, you got a bunch of involved editors to !vote to have them banned - an action not supported by WP:CBAN which requires uninvolved editors. I'm most concerned with the way Wikipedians acted during that incident, including houding and harassment by radical opponents of COI editing, and you continue to not take any responsibility for your role to play. You paved the path for them and insisted they walk down it right to a site ban. I guarantee BDB is still around and are now operating in secret. Good job, we'll never know what edits they perform now. You're a regular genius. @Atlantictire: Honesty is one of my best qualities. I admit I'm not always right, but I honestly believe I am right about what I say when I'm saying it.--v/r - TP 17:19, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really surprised that you would defend the comment to which I linked. I assumed you were engaged in some kind of hyperbole, and weren't seriously suggesting that Coretheapple was being disruptive when he said "I'm not clear on why there is an outing concern here." (Frankly I'm not clear myself.) To cite that as an example of "I didn't hear that" is nothing less than bizarre. It's also ironic, because IDHT is part of the policy on disruption and what you were doing was disrupting the conversation in pursuit of your personal grudge against Coretheapple. No, I am not surprised that you are taking my comments with a grain of salt, because that is in keeping with the behavior pattern I have observed, and it is prevalent in the preceding discussion as well. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you insist that "As a one-person company, I cannot disclose my employer without outing myself and risking harassment" isn't clear on how the user would be outing themselves, then you as well are displaying an WP:IDHT behavior. There is nothing at all ambiguous about this. He is a 1 person company. Identifying his employer very clearly identifies himself. That you continue to insist not to understand makes me really question what you're doing at this review. I'm asking for honest feedback - this isn't open season to grind axes and continue an argument that clearly belongs at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict of interest.--v/r - TP 19:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't interpret it that way. I interpreted it as "as a self-employed person I can't disclose my client," but I see your point. You're right, a self-employed person would be disclosing his own identity if he disclosed "his employer." As a self-employed person myself, I interpreted "employer" to mean "client." Perhaps Core had the same point of confusion. I hope you see that I'm right when I say that your temperament is simply not what one comes to expect from an administrator. Rather than assume good faith, and providing an explanation, you immediately assumed bad faith and went on the offensive. This is typical of how you operate, and I think that you would benefit greatly from looking closely in the mirror sometime. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my temperment in the COI discussion has not been ideal and it isn't representative of my usual behavior. In fact, Atlantictire above describes me as indifferent and disinterested which is my normal everyday self. I'm upset because I feel there is a lot of misunderstandings when it comes to COIs, a lot of exaggerations, and there are many 'champions' who think they are saving Wikipedia when in reality they don't fully comprehend what they are fighting. That's why I get upset. I don't support paid advocacy, I don't support using the encyclopedia to gain money or fame. This is a free-culture project that I and many many thousands of others have volunteered hours towards. I'd never support anything that compromises the integrity of the project. But I see underground editing as the bigger threat than disclosed editing and I fear many of the tactics we're using encourage underground editing rather than combat it. Rules do not solve problems - cultures and how we address issues solve problems.--v/r - TP 19:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you have a theoretical framework on COI editing to which you adhere strongly, whereas people like me are less concerned with theory and more with practicality. At BDB, for instance, there was a serious problem with disruption that is now gone. No, to respond to your earlier ocmment, I did not "get" anyone to ban those editors. That kind of battleground comment will get you nowhere. There was a discussion at AN/I and it overwhelmingly favored a site ban. Since then the disruption has stopped on the page. There has been no "secret army" of BDB socks and if there was, they would be visible. What you don't seem to recognize is that there already was a secret army of BDB socks, dozens of them. That is one of the principal reasons they were banned.
I view COI as a disruptive influence, much like any other form of disruption. I don't view it as a moral crusade as you seem to feel it does when you guess at the motives of people who disagree with you. When the disruption is eliminated, the volunteer editors can get down to business. My problem with your approach of "facilitating" COI editing is that it perpetuates a disruptive influence. But I am happy with whatever the community decides in a fair process. This is really your passion, not mine. Your comments to the contrary indicate you are not reading the discussion very carefully. What raises my hackles is incivility, and I was an early volunteer at WP:WQA as soon as I learned of its existence.
I am glad that you realize that your temperament in the COI page discussion has not been for the best. I think that application of WP:AGF would A) lower the temperature there and B) Improve your ability to influence the discussion. I'm sure you can see how counterproductive it is to come across as a hothead with a personal agenda. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:43, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken. The discussion at ANI had 7 editors supportive of a site ban. You[1], Fut Pref[2], and Coretheapple[3] were all involved. Per WP:CBAN, "f an editor has proven to be repeatedly disruptive in one or more areas of Wikipedia, the community may engage in a discussion to site ban, topic ban, or place an interaction ban or editing restriction via a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute" (emphasis mine). That means 5 uninvolved editors: Robert McClenon, Origamite, John Nagle, Hasteur, and G S Palmer supported a site ban. There has never been a site ban discussion on Wikipedia with less support. The only reason I haven't argued this case further is because BDB in incapable of receiving help w/o screwing it up and I don't have time to waste on a cause that is going to make my work harder. I'm choosing my battles - I'll pick the fight when there is a group that is better suited toward following policy. Otherwise, I'm not sure sure your site ban would've been successful.--v/r - TP 21:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't speak for the other two you mention, but since I never actually edited the article, but only became involved when I saw it at ANI early last month (one of the two or three discussions that led to the site banning), I'm not sure I'd count as involved. Maybe I was; I just don't know enough about the process. The only really "involved" editor apart from the BDB crew was an SPA who didn't participate. But anyway, the closing administrator was convinced, and there really was no one arguing with any real enthusiasm against banning. In fact, as I recall from the flow of the discussion, you yourself grew disgusted with BDB and ultimately gave up on them. In fact, you commented something to the effect that your proposal was the only thing preventing them from being indeffed. I remember feeling at the time that your disillusionment was crucial in the banning. Additionally, what you need to consider is that in the midst of that Okteriel, a very active and disruptive BDB editor, was blocked as a sockpuppet. That didn't help. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm not going to waste my time on people who can't help themselves. I've been successful at saving editors from indefs in the past whose real crime was not realizing what the actual dispute was. I had hoped to do the same, but when I am trying to explain BDB's point of view and BDB comes out and directly contradicts what I'm trying to get across to everyone - well there is no point. I don't have the level of patience and good faith that Dennis Brown does but I think I've done a fairly decent job of sticking my neck out to try to recover disputes that went way off. I wrote WP:DESIRABLEOUTCOME and I think we need less knee-jerk bans and more communication on this project. Also, I don't see a sock block on either BDBJack or BDBIsreal. There was a sock block on BDBJack but it was overturned with insufficient evidence ([4]).--v/r - TP 22:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to put the record straight, I wonder where you got the idea from that I had been "involved" with the BDB debacle before that ban discussion? I most definitely wasn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I looked around and could not find a definition of what "involved in the underlying dispute" means. What definition are you relying on, TParis? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think it was necessary to provide diffs, since the purpose is not to appeal to a third party but to provide direct feedback. I thought that our discussion had concluded, but if TParis wants diffs, I will provide them. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've probably disagreed with him on a few occasions recently but those were in cases where the questions were clearly far from cut and dried and reasonable disagreements were possible. I have not to my memory seen anything in my recent contacts with him which would make me question his ability to use the admin tools properly. If people think he is disqualified because at times his conduct is less than perfect I suggest they try to build a time machine and get Spock to come back with them. Otherwise I salute him for taking the extraordinary step of initiating regular voluntary review. John Carter (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great guy, would make admin again. 10/10. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 13:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My first (and really, only) interaction with TP, was not a pleasant one, partially stemming from a misunderstanding on my part. But, other than that time, I find myself disagreeing with him (Not as in arguing type of disagreeing, but simply not agreeing), but he makes sense. He is reacting well to criticism here. A bit snappy, but a good admin. Keep it up. --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:04, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


More