User talk:TParis

Holiday wishes!

TParis, thanks for your hard work this year, you deserve wonderful holidays! I wish you success and happiness in your endeavours for this coming year, and I hope we'll be able to carry on improving the wonderful project that is Wikipedia together! Keep rocking on! :) Salvidrim!, wrapping up another great year of collaboration with y'all!

Merry Christmas!

Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Barnstar of Awesome

	Barnstar of Awesome
	You are hereby awarded the Barnstar of Awesome for your much appreciated protection of Wikipedia from language snobbery [1]. Thank you! Regards, Safehaven86 (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Deity

From Latin _Deus_. My mom taught Latin and the spelling yells at me <g> Collect (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hey, I'm still closing :P Peace.--v/r - TP 22:29, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Pax vobiscum <g>. And Happy New Year! Collect (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

MilesMoney's response on his talk page

I have seen a statement by User:MilesMoney on his talk page, in response to a request from you. There are a number of issues that I would like to respond to, as a somewhat-involved editor. What is the appropriate forum for doing that? I am reluctant to post directly on Miles' page. Do you anticipate that this statement will be in the RfC/U? StAnselm (talk) 22:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm prepared to go back and forth on this. You've been pretty active on the ANI thread, is there anything new you'd like to address or would you be restating things you've already said?--v/r - TP 23:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Good question - one of the things I thought of I had already explicitly stated at ANI. Another - the use of "Conservative Cloud" - I had only hinted at. A third item - regarding the "far-right politics" categorization - has not been addressed. StAnselm (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

If y'all are talking about this, I thought the point of it was that Miles wants his statement to be copied into the current ANI discussion (since he is still blocked for a bit). In which case anyone could respond there if they wish. --RL0919 (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I believe he does, per the "If you've voted to get rid of me based on false allegations, you may wish to reconsider your vote" at the end. StAnselm (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Ya'all please feel free to copy it, I'm in the middle of reading some ANI discussions. Trying to get some stuff closed.--v/r - TP 23:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

"Tallying" ANI

Hello TP. I was a bit startled to see your use of "tallying" in reference to the closing of TFD/Miles ANI thread. It sounded like vote-counting, which I presume was not the meaning you intended. SPECIFICO talk 00:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

That's a bit out of context. What I said was that a precursory tallying shows that a ban of some sort is likely but that I will have to actually read the comments before closing.--v/r - TP 00:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I always do a tally of the various positions when I close a large discussion. Not because it controls the outcome, but if you are going to close against the majority you need to be prepared to explain why (for example, this discussion I closed a few years back against a 2:1 numerical majority). Although, it occurs to me that heaven only knows what all the various admins do around this, since there is no class for it, no monitoring, etc. --RL0919 (talk) 00:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much the same. Take a tally of the supports/opposes to get a general sense. Then real the opinions in a more detailed sense. Then figure out which positions early in the discussion were defeated later in the discussion. Figure out who was cited most as influential. Then see how the wording of the policy matches with the application of those strongly held positions. Wrap it all up in a summary and done.--v/r - TP 00:38, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any mention there of trying to get a sense of which editors have been long involved, their own behavior in such involvement, etc. per WP policy. Tally ho! SPECIFICO talk 00:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware I was required to recite the policy verbatim. Is there something specific you are concerned about? Have I closed something poorly previously that you're worried about?--v/r - TP 00:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

My concern is limited to what I've stated in this thread. As I'm sure you recall I had a concern once in the past about a closing and I was impressed by your responsiveness and commitment to doing the right thing in the interests of WP. Nothing on my mind except what I stated above. Thanks for your work on this. I know it is not easy, but it is appreciated. SPECIFICO talk 00:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

And it's just occurred to me that, yes, there was a previous discussion that you were concerned about. I had forgotten you emailed me about that until just now. In any case, I have a feeling this is going to Arbcom so the close might be moot in a month.--v/r - TP 01:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi TP. I see that in your close of the MM thread you state << SPECIFICO's houding of editors in this dispute hasn't been helpful at all. Attempting to tie nearly every editor to MilesMoney in someway is an ad hominem. It doesn't address their argument in any way and attempts to discredit them based on who they are. That's not good dispute resolution.>>

I made clear my interpretation of policy as cited by an Admin at the top of the thread. I stated my opinion that 3 or 4, I forget the count, of the editors were "involved." I'd like to ask you, TP, what is your definition of "hounding", bearing in mind the cited policy reason for ID'ing involved editors, and what is the basis for your assertion that I attempted to "tie nearly every editor" to MM? Is 3 or 4 what you meant by "nearly every editor?" Frankly I think your comment stinks. And the reason, as you should understand all too well, is that many editors read such a statement (particularly from an Admin) and they assume there's lots of fact and truth behind it. But unless you have some explanation (which would greatly surprise me in light of what I've just said) I think your statement was irresponsible at the least and in fact better described as a Personal Attack on me and I ask you to consider it carefully and withdraw it. Because I already responded to a similar baseless accusation from @Adjwilley: within the ANI thread, I can't assume that your statement, demonstrably false though it is, was made casually or without awareness of the issue. So I respectfully ask you to reconsider your statement about me in the closing box. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 03:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm on my phone right now and I started drinking a cheap wine about 30 minutes ago so I can't give you a full answer tonight but RFA when we see someone responding to a majority is those who oppose their viewpoint we call it hounding. We can talk more about it tomorrow. --v/r - TP 04:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

When you have the time, please review what I've written here and bear in mind that I referred specifically to the policy which an Admin posted at the top of the ANI and which clearly states the principle which motivated my remarks concerning a few not every editors' involvement. Thanks for the prompt update. SPECIFICO talk 04:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Current CBAN policy

Re: Wikipedia:CBAN#Community_bans_and_restrictions you wrote in close of MilesMoney matter above: A community ban discussion of uninvolved editors means that a group of predominately involved editors in the current dispute cannot determine who gets banned from the project. It does not mean that editors involved in the dispute cannot contribute to the consensus. This interpretation is fairly new and recent.

Obviously it is since I and evidently others never heard of it and then when I looked at WP:CBAN the references were to an inactive community ban noticeboard and an ambiguous reference to uninvolved/involved "comments" which I assumed included support and nonsupport. So before posting to talk-WP:CBAN asking for clarification of policy, I thought I'd see if you wanted to initiate the relevant change at the policy page. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The words have been the same for many years, it's only the interpretation that has changed. In the middle of a community split on meaning is a bad time to go change wording. If the consensus is going to change on what that means, then it'll change. We should be mindful of how this gets applied in the future.--v/r - TP 19:10, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm not pushing for any particular outcome, just seeking clarity. But I have a feeling that this issue will be coming up more in other cases soon enough since there are a lot of editors who tick off others on a number of articles with different editors who will be skeptical of being labeled as "involved". I just don't want to be badgered because my understanding of a somewhat ambiguously written policy differs from someone elses, both of us non-admins. So I'll just ask on talk page in the "Seeking clarification" mode and see what happens.

Even looking at it now, I see that "involved in the underlying dispute" itself is unclear when it's about bad behavior in so many places, including other ANIs which makes any editor only commenting on ANIs "involved". It's almost like rewarding editors for ticking off a lot of people! (Hmmm, so in that case maybe I do see a preferred outcome!) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:02, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The whole point of that section is to prevent a bunch of editors with a content dispute on Billy from New Orleans to community ban User:FrankieJr because he disagrees with them. It requires a consensus of uninvolved editors, but not a consensus of just uninvolved editors. The idea is that a wider variety of users representing the community, and not representing just those in the dispute, need to be involved in the process. That ensures that community bans are based on behavior and not just content disputes. That level of community input is determined by the closing administrator as are all things of discretion.--v/r - TP 23:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me that CBAN should be reformulated to remove any ambiguity. It's absurd to suggest that aggrieved editors should have no voice simply because they are the victims of personal attacks and whatnot. Since the closing admin is expected to weigh arguments and not merely count votes, it follows naturally that the statements of "involved editors" will be evaluated accordingly.

In the instant case, it is evident that implementing SPECIFICO's interpretation of CBAN would not have helped MM. After all, most if not all of the 9 editors who opposed a sanction were just as involved as anybody else, and if we throw out all of the involved editors from either side we are still left with a near-unanimous consensus to impose a sanction. Roccodrift (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I took a very careful look at only counted 2 as participating in the underlying dispute. Though it would be more if we took the wide approach that SPECIFICO took in identifying those involved. Many more of the opposes would've been counted as involved.--v/r - TP 23:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

So part of the "problem" that develops in the discussions is the broad range of complaints that are presented in topics along with the complaints about community interaction with particular editors. For example, there could be POV pushing on one particular article, done by a very polite editor. Compare with simple nasty NPA comments from an editor across the board with no particular focus on topics or articles. The first, in my opinion, be an "underlying dispute" type matter while the second does not involve an underlying dispute, only a less than collegial approach to the community. Sometimes we get a mixture of problems – topic disputes with nasty remarks, etc. – S. Rich (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The purpose of the policy, if I read the talk page archives correctly, is to prevent a group of POV editors from banning a neutral editor in order to win a content dispute. That is always going to be a problem. Editors tend to be harsher on people with whom they have content disputes than with those with whom they agree. But this editor has had ample opportunity to seek outside input through notice boards and RfCs, and has done so. Editors who might have sided with him have in some cases voted for a ban and in most cases have chosen not to become involved. TFD (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed...And a number of those with the same political leanings that have been previously supportive of being lienient with MilesMoney ended up supporting a CBAN. I didn't get any pleasure out of seeing the guy banned, and would have supported postponing such a CBAN if he had agreed to avoid BLP's and political articles in general for a set period of time. I would have fought to prevent such a CBAN had he agreed to do as I suggested, and its hard to imagine that he didn't have skills that could have been used to improve noncontroversial areas of the pedia for awhile. IMHO, the fact that he had an out but instead wanted to continue on the same trajectory indicated to me that he was indeed only here for one purpose.--MONGO 01:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Closed discussion garbled

This edit garbled a closed discussion. Re the assertion in there saying, "We use what the majority of sources use.", that's not what I read WP:DUE to say. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." First sentence.--v/r - TP 00:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Wmflabs error

Hey Tparis, is there a place to report bugs on the wmflabs site? I've checked Bugzilla and am not completely convinced that's where I need to go, but let me know if I am in error. Thanks, and have a great day! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Try this right here: [2].--v/r - TP 03:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	Your summary of; and patience while working through the recent MM debacle is appreciated. VVikingTalkEdits 03:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

gun Control

I don't know if you are aware, but a gun control ArbCom case has opened, largely spillover from the ANI case that you commented on previously. while I certainly wouldn't consider your comments in the ANi involvement, there have been several uninvolved commenters on the case already,so yo umay wish to drop in $0.02. [[3]]Gaijin42 (talk) 18:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I really don't know much about the debate (the on-Wiki version of it, I'm not a political virgin) so I'm not sure what help I can provide to an Arbcom case. I'd have no idea where to get diffs to support any findings.--v/r - TP 19:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Based on your comments at ANI, and experience as an administrator, I was thinking you may have had some insights into larger context consensus decisions on what is an RS and what is Fringe (can opinions about the significance of established fact in fact be considered fringe?), and to what degree (if any) strong POV sources cease to be RS (for the purpose of documenting their opinions, and showing notability of the idea or undisputed facts covered) (obviously interpretations of facts should not be taken as facts themselves, nor disputed facts) - since that seems to be the crux of the disagreement between the various editors. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no particular expertise on fringe theories. I have a pretty healthy trust/skeptic ratio with the world and I tend to not believe some of the crueler conspiracy theories. But from WP:FRINGE, "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it is." The inverse is also true, Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear less notable than it is. 9/11 truthers and Obama birthers are notable. Those who believe that the earth is flat arn't so much notable. Notability != right--v/r - TP 21:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Please un-ban MilesMoney

I strongly object to the haste with which you closed User:MilesMoney's recent community ban. If I or any representative sample of the majority of editors who have interacted with him had had the opportunity to comment, there is no doubt in my mind that the outcome would have been far different. Why did you not open an RFC/U for at least thirty days? I ask that you please reverse yourself and do so. If you are unwilling then please tell me the instructions for how to appeal on Miles' behalf and I will gladly do so. I think you screwed up in one of the most abusive ways possible, but I have no desire to paste a trout template to emphasize my sincerity. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 05:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, there was no haste whatsoever. The thread had gone on to where we had 3 dozen+ commentators. And earlier threads about MM went on for 2+ weeks. In those earlier threads, the majority of commentators were critical of MM. On an earlier occasion (as I recall) TP reversed a decision about MM, and the contentious editing from MM only shifted into other subjects. MM has been a disruptive presence on WP from the get-go. (Early on, because of problems with MM's ISP, the farewell comment was "Fuck Wikipedia". And the "post-mortem" Austrian School ban that MM expressed had the same sort of "fuck Wikipedia" attitude.) As I mentioned above, even when MM had the opportunity to work on the RFC/U in a constructive manner, the edits made were simply more WP:POINTy nonsense. If there is a majority of editors who have interacted with MM in a positive manner, they should have spoken up. But I strongly doubt that such a majority exists. There was nothing stopping MM's supporters from going off-wiki to recruit positive comments, but now we see one supporter contending that off-wiki recruiting was undertaken to do MM in. If MM's indef is to be reversed, I would hope that normal WP due process be followed. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Why does "normal WP due process" not involve the same 30 days that we give to ordinary RFCs? This looks like an obvious attempt at railroading by Austrian school proponents upset about those willing to call them on the fact that there are no peer reviewed sources agreeing with their niche belief. What is the link to the RFC/U you refer to? I was not aware that there had been one. EllenCT (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no 30-day discussion requirement for RfCs. They can be closed quite rapidly when the result is obvious, per WP:SNOW. Roccodrift (talk) 05:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Opinions on Miles were nowhere near WP:SNOW. EllenCT (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The 30 day RFCU procedure and the task of TP to assess community sentiment are two separate processes. TP, an experienced volunteer, has done what he thinks best. The community has entrusted TP with the tools and authority to carry out such assessments. The community did not SNOW Miles, but I think TP made the right assessment and I applaud him for his decision. (And here are the links for Miles' last contentious and patently disruptive screw-ups on the RFC/U: [4] & [5]. ) – S. Rich (talk) 06:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

EllenCT, I'm sorry that you did not pay more attention to the travails that MM was facing. But you did receive notice back in October about another controversy that MM was involved in. I refer to the message that Specifico left you here. – S. Rich (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You were involved with MilesMoney in two articles, Progressive tax and income inequality. I suggest you read the links I provided because however he may have acted on those articles, they were not presented as examples at ANI. TFD (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

That is precisely why it is so obvious that the ANI thread was closed in haste after only those Austrian economics fans who had a chance to try to railroad Miles had commented. I continue to lack confidence in TP's judgement, but far more troubling is User:Srich32977's attempt to prevent my appeal on MilesMoney's behalf. There is absolutely no evidence that Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/MilesMoney ever proceeded past Phase 1. Again, I ask that Miles be unbanned and allowed to defend himself at the RFC/U for a full 30 days before such an obviously political banning is executed. EllenCT (talk) 07:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

You were involved with MilesMoney in two articles, Progressive tax and income inequality. I suggest you read the links I provided because however he may have acted on those articles, they were not presented as examples at ANI. TFD (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• I strongly suggest you do not use a trout template here nor accuse me of being 'one of the most abusive'. You should definitely save such language for actual cases of abuse. Ellen, your 30 days request makes me wonder if your really here to benefit the encyclopedia or to benefit a person. It's a bit of a silly request because such a requirement doesn't exist anywhere in policy. In fact, WP:CBAN, spells it out at least 24 hours which this discussion had double. An WP:RFC/U is not a replacement for an ANI discussion.

  Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct/Guidance says "What RfC/U CANNOT do is: Impose/enforce involuntary sanctions, blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures;" An RFC/U would've had to have been started after the last ANI thread on MilesMoney reached no-consensus, not in the middle of a thread that seems to be leading to a definite sanction. What is also a concern is that Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/MilesMoney is not an RFC/U no matter what it's title says. We have a predetermined and very strict format for RFC/Us that the one here did not follow. It's too late for an RFC/U at that point, only Arbcom could've replaced an ANI thread like that.

  However, if you wish to continue in the appeals process, there are two:

  1. Convince the Community on WP:AN to overturn the block by consensus. You can do this by convincing them that MilesMoney is ready to come back, was never disruptive in the first place, or that there was something wrong with my close. You can try to convince them on your 30 day idea, I somehow suspect that won't work but, and I mean this full heatedly, be my guest. Or you can try to convince them I was WP:INVOLVED. If you go down that route, please be sure to actually read the policy in full because 99.9% of those accusations get ignored because the accuser failed to note that "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area." I've never encountered MilesMoney in anything but an administrative fashion.

  2. The second appeal route is Arbcom. They have historically declined cases not opened by the banned party themselves but you could go this route. Same rules as the above apply. Arbcom is not a fun process and you'll be required to back up everything you've said with diffs and policy. Since your 30 day idea isn't backed up by policy, I strongly suggest you do not go this route but its, again, your call. Note that MilesMoney himself was leery of Arbcom for good reason. You might do him more harm than good.

  My last bit of advice for you is that you take a while to reflect on this before doing anything to determine if I am really abusive or if you're just upset that your friend got banned. I don't speak for the community, I didn't ban your friend, they did. I don't have a foot in that door, I don't edit the same areas that he does, his leaving the project doesn't affect me at all. Have a good day, Ellen, and I'm available if you have any more questions about process or if you need additional clarification.--v/r - TP 07:24, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Miles was no "friend" -- I was offended by his coarseness and by his apparent need to share his taste in porn. I am upset because the list of people who asked to ban him are overwhelmingly opponents of his distaste for Austrian economics, which indeed I do share. I am appalled that community bans can close in 24 hours and will indeed try to convince people that there is "something wrong" with that. I would note that you have a message when your talk page is edited that says "If I screwed up, feel free to {{trout}} me." If that is not a sincere request, then perhaps you should consider removing it. EllenCT (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

My 2 cents here - Miles may not have been a "friend", but he was a consistent ally of EllenCT in advancing certain views on articles (ie, Progressive tax), that helped her effort. Perhaps that's the source of Ellen's concerns? EllenCT has suggested that had we waited for other editors to come along, the RFC might have been different. While editors from the Progressive tax article were not notified of the this, I can draw your attention to this section Talk:Progressive_tax#Edit-warring where User NK took umbrage at Miles Money's accusation of edit warring for making a sole edit just after Miles and EllenCT had made multiple efforts to insert controversial material.Mattnad (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

It is a sincere request, but one should base my wrong/rightness in the context of policy; not personal opinion. The 30 days bit is a personal opinion. On the subject of that, there is another option that I have just thought of and that is to hold an RFC on the talk page for WP:CBAN to change the 24 hours bit to 30 days. Although I think you should adjust your opinion to something more realistic like 7 days if you want to get any support for your idea. A 30 day old ANI thread is just nearly unheard of. The change in policy wouldn't help MilesMoney much, but it'd help to fix something you perceive as a problem.--v/r - TP 07:47, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. EllenCT (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ya'all please this isn't the place to fight each other. Pointing how who has connected to Miles where is really just an ad hominem way of ignoring their arguments without having to rebuke them. There are plenty of involved on either side but the only one it truly matters is me. Trying to discredit each other just, well it's not helpful. Let's all be collegial. EllenCT's concerned about the time the thread was open, she's opened an RFC on it. I just don't get it why people make these things so personal instead of countering the argument. Focus on the edits.--v/r - TP 18:53, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Another thing you (TP) should be privy to. The group of editors who led the charge against Miles on the ANI have propagated a series of frivolous ANIs and SPIs against Miles. (See the simply comical attempts at statistical 'reasoning' by User:Collect in this SPI for a good illustration of how carelessly and irrationally such accusations were thrown around.) I don't know the rules that well, but don't they say that these sort of factors (i.e. clear personal and ideological vendettas, and WP:canvassing through repeated attempts to sanction a user) must be taken into account when determining if a consensus has been reached? Steeletrap (talk) 23:03, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

There were several editors who have nothing to do with Austrian Economics who supported the ban. I am completely opposed to that ideology personally, don't edit in the area, and had only one fairly polite interaction with MilesMoney. I consider myself uninvolved. To me, though, the evidence was clear that this editor has been disruptive, tendentious and has a battlefield mentality. I conclude that TParis's close was entirely proper. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Editing restrictions

There seems to be a difference of opinion of the restrictions imposed in the ANI thread you recently closed; please review [6]. Thanks. NE Ent 21:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's my mistake. You're right that I didn't include that in the close, but Sportsfan is right that there was strong support for 2 and 3. I was aware of that and for some reason spaced during the close. The confusion is my fault, I'll go fix it.--v/r - TP 21:42, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Another reason why your closure was unfair and inadequate: leaving aside the motives and affiliations of users, there was not a remotely strong consensus in favor of a community ban. Only 23/43 were in favor; and since his enemies mostly (coincidentally, I'm sure) voted to ban soon after the ANI opened, the incoming votes were tending towards Miles. If you eliminate involved editors from the picture (as you were supposed to do, per WP:CBAN), the consensus is actually opposed to the community ban. Yet you cut the ANI off while votes were still being counted. Absolutely unacceptable conduct for an admin. Steeletrap (talk) 23:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Recall

Please update http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:TParis/Recall#Editors – I'm not sure there's 5 of the listed editors still active in order to invoke your Option 3. Thanks. 66.87.145.214 (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)