User talk:TParis

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Your AN/I close of the revdel incident

A few comments:

• Why do you say that evidence of abuse is required to overturn the revdel? One can simply disagree about the judgement without alleging abuse. I never alleged abuse in my own opening statement, but explicitly asked for a review. Thus nobody commented about abuse, because it wasn't even an issue.
• In your quoting of the rev-del policy, you did not quote RD2, the rationale given for revdel. "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our biographies of living people policy." I think a strong case can be made that this did not violate BLP, and as I see it, there was a consensus against the claim of BLP violation in the ANI thread.
• I do not see why you simply ignored the third bullet point: Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal.. Clearly, there is significant dissent, and was even before it was revdeled. I also fail to see what exactly is "grossly offensive" in a passage which is debunking allegations. If I say to someone "you are not a Nazi, you are in fact a committed anti-fascist" am I offending them?
• As for a consensus of uninvolved administrators, is it my fault that enough admins didn't bother to comment on the administrators' noticeboard? The requirement for limiting it to administrators only exists because the material is only viewable by them - which does not apply here. To cite this requirement and ignore the statements of non-admins seems to me just legalism. If one really wants to be pedantic, the statement "clear, wider consensus" does not say "clear, wider consensus among administrators". However, I have no desire to be pedantic. All matters are ultimately under the control of the community, which you also quote. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 04:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
• I quoted the policy, read it. Regarding the number of admins, it's luck of the draw but generally gamergate topics runs admins off. Especially after what is happening to Gamaliel.--v/r - TP 04:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I did read it. Hence I quoted from what you wrote, and from the policy. For instance, let's simply look at the first point. From WP:REVDEL: They are subject to review by other administrators (who can see redacted material), and to reversal upon clear, wider consensus. I don't see anything about abuse here, nor did I raise the point. Yet you write in your close that When closing this discussion, my objective is to determine if there is a consensus of administrators that the action was an abuse. Why? If I ask for a block review, or deletion review, there is no question of abuse. I am asking for an independent review of the revdel, or block, or deletion etc. If I wanted to ask a question about abuse, I would have opened a case against the admin, not a case about the revdel. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 06:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm also a bit confused about this, and I'm not involved in Gamergate whatsoever (beyond closing a couple discussions that were listed at WP:ANRFC, I suppose). You quoted a policy which states revdel should not be used when any significant disagreement over its use could arise. This seems to suggest you must have consensus for revdel for it to remain deleted rather than consensus against revdel. Would you mind elaborating on why you think the "no consensus" outcome should be for the deletion to remain in light of that line in the policy? ~ Rob^Talk 22:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus for me to take an action. I can't stop the original action, but I can take an action to reverse it. No consensus exists for me to take the 2nd action. No consensus generally defaults to status quo. You can discuss with the original admin that REVDEL the material to review the discussion and determine that the action was contended. But what cannot be done is for a future action to be taken when there is no consensus to take it. You can be bold and ask for forgiveness, but you can't ask for permission and then be bold.--v/r - TP 22:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

May I ask how you determined consensus? I see 4 people supporting the revdel (Johnuniq, Only in death, Jehochman and SlimVirgin) in the ANI thread, and 9 people opposing (everyone else). In my own mind, the arguments of the 4 are weaker, so that counts against them as well, but I am biased, so I will say that, won't I? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't read my close since your questions were already answered before you asked them. Read this slowly and carefully so you don't miss anything:

"I can already see how unpopular this is going to be, but, the policy on revdel makes it clear that:

• "RevisionDelete allows selective redaction of posts and log entries by administrators, as well as peer review by any administrator of the correct use of the tool."
• "The community's endorsement of the tool included a very strong consensus that its potential to be abused should be strictly barred, prevented by the community, and written into the policy."
• "Material must be grossly offensive, with little likelihood of significant dissent about its removal. Otherwise it should not be removed."
• "They are subject to review by other administrators (who can see redacted material), and to reversal upon clear, wider consensus."

When closing this discussion, my objective is to determine if there is a consensus of administrators that the action was an abuse. This discussion has determined there there is no consensus that the REVDEL was an abuse. It has also noted that there is no consensus for its original use, either. But my role here is to determine if a consensus exists to overturn the original decision - which it does not. In what format the community is meant to prevent abuse of the tool, I do not know. There doesn't appear to me a method for the community to judge the material by themselves in an ordinary situation without administrative access to review the material. In this case, that material is available but the policy isn't written to allow for this exception. A discussion should take place at the WP:REVDEL talk page to resolve this issue. In the meantime, the material should not be restored because a consensus of administrators has not developed in 2 weeks to overturn the original decision. I make absolutely no judgement on the material that was REVDEL'd, no judgement on if the original action is correct, and no prejudicial statement on future precedent. This closure strictly addresses whether or not a consensus has developed to overturn an administrative action in accordance with the WP:REVDEL policy. I've determined there is not a consensus for that."

There are 6 administrators in that thread, 3 in support and 3 opposed. Good day.--v/r - TP 23:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The snark isn't really necessary. We've read the close, but we disagree with it because the policy (RevDel shouldn't be used when it would likely encounter "significant dissent") doesn't match with the action (RevDel remains while there's significant dissent). In any event, this is a more productive use of everyone's time. Dropping the link here for other editors who stumble upon this section while disagreeing with the close. Good day to you as well. ~ Rob^Talk 23:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to make a judgement on whether it should or shouldn't have been used. But it was. The question is then whether there is a consensus to reverse it. There wasn't. I suggested the issue of review by administrators be taken up at RfC, which you've done. I think that's the best way to go.--v/r - TP 23:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I already told you that I read your close, but thanks for copy-pasting it again. /sarcasm It's clear that you won't change your mind, which is fine. Since a masochist, I have opened a review of your close on WP:AN. I am happy that an RfC has been opened, which can modify WP:REVDEL to deal with future cases. However, I am of the opinion that even the policy as written does not support the revdel. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I saw your comment on the WT:REVDEL page and was puzzled about what "gender divide" you're talking about. I also saw your comment above, where you say that the discussion among admins was "3-3". As far as I can see: there were two admins which supported revdel - SlimVirgin and Jehochman. (GorillaWarfare carried out the original revdel so she didn't vote). There were 2 which opposed: Protonk and DGG. Among all people who voted one way or another, only one - SlimVirgin - identified as a woman - the rest were male or unspecified. So I have no idea what you're talking about. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:25, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Consensus isn't about counting !votes. There is another admin in that discussion who agrees with GorillaWarfare and SlimVirgin. Ask yourself why three female admins feel one way, and the male admins feel another.--v/r - TP 02:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Are you talking about Liz? She didn't say anything about the case: hers was a procedural point. She was unaware that I had already discussed with GorillaWarfare before opening the ANI case - and GW set her straight about this. Perhaps I should have opened the discussion on WP:DRV instead, but as GW stated, ANI works too. I see no divide, gender or otherwise in the ANI ddiscussion. Also, are you seriously considering GW as part of consensus? Of course a person will agree with their own decision. DRV/ANI discussions are for other people to weigh in on the matter.

Speaking generally, I reject the use of "gender divide" in this matter at all. The "class divide" is relevant to the matter, because the permissions are a crucial part of the argument. Gender is not: I was not aware that admin corps contain more women than the general editor population. And may I remind you of what OR said?. She said that she doesn't trust the general Wikipedian population, but admins are supposed to know what they're talking about. Am I the person who brought up "class" here? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:56, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) When Navigation Popups added the gender-identifying feature last month I did a little study of the currently-active admins, and the ratio was about ten males to one female, fairly consistently by a few different measures—and not obviously different from the general editor-demographics surveys I’ve seen. Details of my methodology & results available on request.—Odysseus1479 03:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

When discussing the gender divide, I can include GW. The gender divide point is that male admins see the material as no harmful while female admins see it as harmful. Whether GW revdel'd it or not has no bearing on the clear evidence that differntly gendered admins viewed this matter differently along gender lines; with the exception of Jehochman whom I apparently overlooked.--v/r - TP 03:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

That still makes only two female admins. Also, if you have followed the Gamergate drama, one cannot accuse MarkBernstein of being in the, "non-feminist" side. The redacted passage is actually by a woman, who is friends with Zoe Quinn, who was the main target of misogynistic attacks. If you can find some lesson about "gender" in this saga, you're a better person than I, Gunga Din. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

So interesting to see a polite exchange of comments between admins as being "set straight". Clearly, I should have been more vocal in my support. My point was that I didn't believe ANI was the correct forum for the discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

BAGBot: Your bot request UTRSBot

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/UTRSBot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 14:54, 5 May 2016 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.

WP:RFBOT

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved for trial. Please see the request page for details. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:15, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Bbb23's talk page: No clue what happened

I literally just left dinner midway because there was apparently some kind of software bizarreness emanating from my response to a comment on User:Bbb23's talk page that led to a couple of random comments being deleted and all hell breaking loose. I have no idea what happened here and have no idea what level of assurance is necessary, besides what has to be my apparent abject cluelessness here, regarding what led to that happening. I genuinely don't know what happened, and I couldn't respond or fix it because I was at dinner with only my iPhone, and the interface is not sufficient to allow me to respond to the person who restored the apparently-randomly-deleted comments or to you. I came back to my office to use my desktop computer to let you know I have no idea what happened here. I don't have the knowledge or authority to generate or turn over any kind of logs for this computer, which is what I used when I responded to User:Bbb23. I seriously don't know what happened and I am mortified and in borderline hysterics at this point, late on a Friday night when I thought I had responded appropriately to a nice comment, logged out, and gone away for the weekend. I am sorry that you are having to deal with anything but I haven't done anything, knowingly at any level, that I even understand well enough to formulate an apology for. So sorry to take your time. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The "HAHAHA" plus the deleted content screamed "intentional vandalism" to me, but if you say it was an accident, I'm willing to take your word for it. Sorry for the over reaction.--v/r - TP 04:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for protecting me, TP. Amazing what happens to my Talk page when I'm off-wiki. No reason to feel mortified, Julietdeltalima, I forgive just about anything if it's done entertainingly. My favorite federal circuit judge is in a different part of the country: Alex Kozinski. He's smart and funny. Even better than his opinions are his stand-up comic routines when he gives talks. Maybe we should recruit him to rewrite Wikipedia policies. They might even be understandable then.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I'm just glad I didn't embarrass myself more by blocking.--v/r - TP 16:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem and no hard feelings! I can see why that had to have looked weird. I still can't figure out what the heck happened; even if others posted while I had an editing window open for that section, I wouldn't expect that saving my changes in that section would have had any effect on any other section. (Bbb23, rest assured Kozinski is on my list right after Posner and Easterbrook! and TParis, thank you for your patience in discussion of U.S. Court of Appeals judges as prose stylists!) All the best for a good week, folks - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #15779

A user you have blocked has opened UTRS appeal #15779 on the Unblock Ticket Request System. The reviewing administrator, TParis (talk · contribs), has requested your input:

TParis-alt (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Time: May 15, 2016 01:16:56

Message: test

Notes:

• If you do not have an account on UTRS, you may create one at the administrator registration interface.
• Alternatively, you can respond here and indicate whether you are supportive or opposed to an unblock for this user and your rationale, if applicable.

--UTRSBot (talk) 01:16, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

DeFacto

Nice close. A lot of the details were a bit intermixed in the discussion and it required a bit of reading between the lines, but you summed it up quite cleanly. Now hopefully, he will move forward with a new perspective. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:21, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been watching his early edits and they seem to be focused in adding images. Hopefully he sticks to that for a good while until the community can open up to him again.--v/r - TP 23:23, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Retire permanently

This is NOT meant as an insult. You are too good for Wikipedia. You deserve better. Your family deserves your time far more than Wikipeida does. Life is short, please don't waste it on this disease ridden, moronically managed sham masquerading as an encyclopedia. God bless you, father, husband, soldier, neighbor, and friend. 69.143.128.229 (talk) 20:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)