User talk:TParis

Image

Please restore the link and first sentence of my comment removed at [1]. 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 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia 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 [2] 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)

Ford Island

A note to significant contributors to the Ford Island article: it's been nominated for promotion to Good article status. The nomination is listed at Good article nominations - Geography. Thanks for your work to improve the article! NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It's already going through an A-class review, which is a higher standard.--v/r - TP 17:32, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I've removed the GA nomination template from the article's talk page and notified significant contributors to the article (User:Miniapolis, User:Dank) about the A-class review that's occurring. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

IBAN question

TP, you and Newyorkbrad are two admins whose opinions usually seem logical and fair to me, but your position on one-way interaction bans - can you revisit your thinking on that, please?

If you remember, I have been hounded by two editors, and when two-way bans were suggested it really upset me because banning the victim of harassment just seems unfair. (IRL, if someone is being stalked and seeks a restraining order, do judges typically make them 2-way? I honestly don't know.)

Also, 2-way is an exception to your own good advice about "least amount of sanctions." For someone who has been harassed, a 1-way ban is an acknowledgement of their suffering, not "idealistic nonsense." I especially think this would help with retention of editors who have been stalked IRL and are sensitive about harassment.

If, after issuing a 1-way ban, the originally harassed editor exploits the situation, they could then be added to the ban. That would be an AGF reaction to such situations.

It is because I respect your ability to consider a problem fairly that I ask you to reconsider your opinion on this issue.

Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not outright opposed to one way interaction bans and I don't know who what is giving anyone that opinion. I'm opposed to one in this case. Though I do think my "two way or no way" would make a great userbox for those who do opposed 1-ban bans altogether.--v/r - TP 17:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

First, thanks for the reply. I'm working from my phone and didn't see that a similar discussion was already started here. Sorry. Maybe the reason some think you are opposed to the 1-way is because, in the current case, there is no evidence that the hounding/harassment has been anything other than 1-way - unless one considers asking the harasser to stop, or bringing the problem to ANI, an act of harassment in itself. Having gone through this myself with two different editors, it seems that objecting to being harassed and asking for help is considered just as offensive as the harassment itself. As if ignoring unacceptable behavior (which is ostensibly forbidden by policy) is not really the suggested, preferred response, but in fact the de facto, expected response... Subject to sanction if you choose not to use it - even if it isn't the published policy. Lightbreather (talk) 18:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The loudest is not always the victim. CarolmooreDC is not a victim at all. The evidence is every ANI complaint CarolmooreDC has ever opened. Do you need links? I don't dislike CMDC, I just don't think she's a victim. She has participated in this feud happily. Imagine if EllenCT were to bring you to ANI, would you feel it were one sided? You're SPECIFICO. Except CMDC hasn't ignored SPECIFICO nearly as well as EllenCT tries to do with you.--v/r - TP 20:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'm not getting something here, but I've never heard of EllenCT. Sorry I've irritated you. I'll go away now. Lightbreather (talk) 23:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't like commenting just because you disagree with something I feel strongly about and I am sure you do not condone the actions of Sitush (although that is something you decide for yourself), but seriously....this is something I truly don't understand your thinking on. To me this is not about Carol, this is about an editor that used their talk page to post off Wiki content in a dubious fashion under circumstances that make Wikipedia a far more hostile environment by allowing this behavior. I am only disappointed in your !vote for the reason that I can't accept that editors can simply begin creating articles on each other when they don't get along. This is the true issue here. This begins something that I feel very strongly will become far worse than drama. This is going to create chaos where there should be solid and firm policy against it. Editors should not be posting off wiki content about editors they are having issues with. But I will respect your opinion even though I truly hope you will reconsider it.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way...it took my less than 3 minutes to find the identity of Sitush off Wikipedia and they seem notable enough for an article. Should Carol simply counter the behavior of Sitush? (of course not) --Mark Miller (talk) 03:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

If you think Sitush is notable, by all means, you or Carol should create an article. To me, this is about an editor systematically removing her opponents. Carol has abused ANI to an obscene degree. Essentially, she's been flinging mud and this time it managed to stick. I'm not going to support that behavior.--v/r - TP 03:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way I am going to create an article on another editor for any reason. But this does show that editors need to begin researching everyone they interact with now. I understand what you are saying above, but past abuse should not cloud the fact that Sitush is in the wrong here. But I am not going to try to convince you further. This is your choice and you feel strongly about it. For that reason alone I will not argue any point at ANI against it.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

We have dozens and dozens of articles on Wikipedians. Unless you can point to something in that article that violates a policy, we cannot sanction an editor ex post facto for something we just don't like.--v/r - TP 03:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

In and of itself...no, there is nothing wrong with creating an article...but that is not exactly what is going on. User talk:Sitush#Away again was an uncalled for posting of off Wikipedia content about a user for no other reason than to draw attention to it. It violates NPA and was a very horrible way for an editor to kick off their new creation, only proving their intent was not to improve the project. The fact that they are in a conflict with that editor while they are creating the article is a horrible precedence to support. That is what I am trying to get across. I am not sure how that is not outing or doxing unless carol had previously posted the content and even if so, they entire way that Sitush did that was not within the spirit or the policy of Wikipedia. I am not forming an opinion because I just don't like it. Heck...I don't like a lot of things but I can easily accept them.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's be clear here: Carol Moore from DC edits with the username Carolmooredc. What part of this is doxxing?--v/r - TP 04:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I did say I was not clear on that TP but the rest I see as a real issue. However... did Carol point to this off Wiki content herself? (by the way, if I am beginning to piss you off just say so and I can certainly stop the discussion. I don't have that strong an opinion to make you bitter with me).--Mark Miller (talk) 04:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Is Carol Moore from DC a notable person? If she is, and she meets Wikipedia's guidelines, then an article about her is not doxxing. Unless, you mean to say that a living person need only register an account on Wikipedia to be immune from our content policies? The question is, are we causing real life harm to Carol? Has Sitush done "opposition research" to use against Carol. I haven't seen this information used against her. This is especially true after Carol Moore includes a picture of herself advocating at a rally connecting her to a advocacy group. You're not pissing me off, Mark, reasonable people disagree.--v/r - TP 04:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Did Carol ever point to this Wikipedia page that Sitush published on their talk page? If not that was indeed inappropriate and against Wikipedia policy. Has Carol asked that her off Wiki activity not mentioned by her be kept off Wikipedia?--Mark Miller (talk) 04:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You used to use your real name here. Now you do not. I would assume you do not wish that information to be disclosed or you would not have changed it. Just asking to not disclose that information is enough. How is that different here? If carol was not the source to that content as self identified than it was outing. If Carol asks for it to be redacted it should...as an editor. As a notable author anyone may have an article if notable enough. That is not an issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I've never used my real name on Wikipedia - nonetheless I was doxxed. The WP:Outing policy says, "The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums." So, my question is, has Sitush used this information to challenge her edits other than regarding conflicts of interest?--v/r - TP 04:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow, sorry you were outed....I thought you once said that you had used your real name before changing to TParis when we were discussing that the name came from Star trek Voyager a long time ago. Sorry...my memory is going.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

But yes, the link I left above to Sitush's talk page was not a challenge to anything and was outing with no COI content that I can see.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, this discussion has helped to distill things down to one important point to me. If it can be demonstrated that Sitush placing that off Wiki information was because Carol had already disclosed the site on Wikipedia, or that Sitush had a legitimate reasoning to add that to their talk page per policy and without any violation to any policy or guideline, I will change my !vote in both places.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It has come down to one important thing for me as well. The outing policy says that you cannot post information of people who use their real name for the sole purpose to challenge them. You said "Sitush's talk page was not a challenge to anything." To me, and according to my quote above from WP:Outing, that means that Stiush has not violated the outing policy.--v/r - TP 05:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, there is other criteria. Before it says that it says:

Posting another editor's personal information is harassment, unless that person had voluntarily posted his or her own information, or links to such information, on Wikipedia. Personal information includes legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, whether any such information is accurate or not. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm outside of their activities on Wikipedia. This applies to the personal information of both editors and non-editors. Any edit that "outs" someone must be reverted promptly, followed by a request for oversight to delete that edit from Wikipedia permanently. If an editor has previously posted their own personal information but later redacted it, it should not be repeated on Wikipedia; although references to still-existing, self-disclosed information is not considered outing. If the previously posted information has been removed by oversight, then repeating it on Wikipedia is considered outing.

Also...this part:

The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research".

That appears to make it clear that just because I actually use my real name, linking to my off Wikipdia activity is no excuse for their "opposing" research. We can't stop the "research" but it can't be posted. But more important to me is this:

If you see an editor post personal information about another person, do not confirm or deny the accuracy of the information. Doing so would give the person posting the information and anyone else who saw the page feedback on the accuracy of the material. Do not treat incorrect attempts at outing any differently from correct attempts for the same reason. When reporting an attempted outing take care not to comment on the accuracy of the information. Outing should usually be described as "an attempted outing" or similar, to make it clear that the information may or may not be true, and it should be made clear to the users blocked for outing that the block log and notice does not confirm the information.

And:

...attempted outing is grounds for an immediate block.

So now I will cross out my !votes for interaction ban and change to block.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're misreading that. Why would the outing policy explicitly state the conditions for editors using their real name if there is no functional difference? The truth is there is a functional difference. Posting about editors information who edit under their real name is allowed by policy providing the conditions that it is not used to challenge another editor outside of a COI complaint. This falls within that scope, as Carolmooredc is not being challenged. If you cannot explain why else the policy would explicitly state these conditions, if your first quote makes it functionally indifferent, then you have to accept that you've misread it.--v/r - TP 06:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

That is not what it says. It says that even if I use my real name, my off wiki activity is not to be posted regardless of a suspected COI. In these cases those off Wiki activities should be e-mailed to an admin.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

That is not what it says at all. It says that if you use your real name, it can be used in a COI case against you. It's pretty clear and explicit on that matter. WP:OUTING, "However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums. ".--v/r - TP 06:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• I just want to make sure you know, you do realize that Carol Moore posted her websites at Carol Moore, right? She never asked for it to be redacted or oversighted per the policy you are quoting.--v/r - TP 06:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • And she also posted this massive list of links about her? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Carol_Moore--v/r - TP 06:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Uhm....its been over sighted. So.....we have an issue here, do we not? I asked if they had posted the content before. But now it is clear that even if they did, it is not there now by request.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
      • It hasn't been oversighted. The article has been deleted, that's not the same as oversighting. If it was oversighted, then only oversighters who have identified to the WMF can see it. It hasn't, and anyone, identified or not, can see it if they have the admin bit. Besides, that list of links at the AfD is still public.--v/r - TP 07:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
        • I don't have the bit. I see nothing but a list of people that can see it and oversight was one. So I did assume it had been scrubbed. Thanks for correcting that...but why show me something I can't see? Anyway.....this is something we certainly will not agree on. I see that and that I have indeed pissed you off. Sorry. I should have stopped a long time ago when I began to think I was beginning to annoy you.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
          • I'm not poissed off. Reasonable people disagree. I do think you block suggestion means you ant listening to what I'm trying to say but I'm not mad. I don't expect to always agree with people. --v/r - TP 07:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
            • OK cool, but I am listening to you....very much. I just found the argument to be different from what I was reading. I have posed a simple question to Carol and I hope she will answer directly and honestly.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CII, September 2014

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 the military history of Austria-Hungary Timeleine: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Expired editnotices nominated for deletion

Hi TParis. I've nominated a bunch of expired editnotices related to the 2012 US elections, which you created, for deletion. You are invited to participate in the deletion discussion. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 10:31, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

A small favor

Hey TParis, can I ask you to do a small favor? I can't close it since it could be argued that I'm not as neutral a party as I should be. Can you please assess the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#lukeisback_and_sexherald_dot_com and close it? It shouldn't take long. (Any of your talk page stalkers can do so as well, of course.) Thanks in advance, Drmies (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, no problem.--v/r - TP 17:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Drmies (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

All done.--v/r - TP 17:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Hey there. Just a word, I don't think we ever had conflict. We had disagreements and mutual concerns but I saw you respond with principle, diligence, and clarity and that's all that counts in my book. SPECIFICO talk 20:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the comments.--v/r - TP 20:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

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! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi!

Oh, hi TParis! How are you? And keep up the good work on Wikipedia, I agree with the administrators are helping the encyclopedia very clean and not vandalized! :) --Allen ^talk 22:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)