Wikipedia:Administrator review/TParis

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Thanks for the opinions, I've taken them all to heart.--v/r - T P 14:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've now been an administrator for six months and I would appreciate a review of my administrative actions. I've been most active on WP:UAA, WP:CSD, WP:AFD, and WP:ANI; however I have also taken a few trips to WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. My primary concern is that my blocks are sound, my deletions are appropriate, and my page protection makes sense. I'll take a review of anything, but it's my tool use I am primarily concerned about. This isn't a make-me-feel-better-fest, although I do appreciate positive comments. Both of my RFAs hinted at low experience and so I'd like reassurance that I have obtained the lacking experience or I have properly interpreted the policies I had less experience with. Critical review of my administrative actions is strongly encouraged and sought. v/r - T P 21:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen you around, no complaints here. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:11, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making this space available. I've actually left a message for you about a recent fast ANI close on your talk page, no sense rehashing it here. Best, —Tim. Carrite (talk) 19:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Severely uncommunicative, intellectually dishonest. per my encounter [1]. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 15:56, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you'd like to find me more communicative, try not starting with calling me "Senseless".--v/r - TP 18:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You could bring 100 people here and i doubt any would accept that i called you senseless. I doubt any would accept even that that is your interpretation. Perhaps User:Swarm below? It seems more like bad faith spin evidencing that you are over-sensitive to criticism of your actions. Either that or poor judgment from someone tasked with policing wp:npa.

It's within the bounds of reasonable discourse, at the very least it's understandable, to describe as senseless a close and deletion of article history four or five hours after a discussion that went nom, three different !votes, relist. Where is the sense? And even if I called you a giant poopyhead, you should still justify your edits and actions. I don't know if that's policy but it's certainly best practice. 86.44.31.213 (talk) 19:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was definitely one of those concerned about lack of experience in your RfA (yours remains the only RfA in which I've felt the need to ask a question). However, since your RfA, you've consistently impressed with your well-reasoned comments and administrative actions alike. A cursory review of your blocks, deletions and AfD closures reveals nothing concerning. If you want more of an in-depth review, I'd be happy to oblige...but I personally don't see a pressing need. IMO, not only have you "obtained the lacking experience", but you've become one of our better admins. (And I don't mean to create a "make you feel better fest", that's my honest opinion.) Swarm ^X 19:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I always believe that it reflects very well on any administrator to participate here, all the more so after only being one for about six months, so a big thank you for that. I can also say that you have really been impressing me lately with the quality of your work. I keep thinking that your comments are insightful and spot-on (for example, your recent comment in favor of ArbCom accepting the Malleus case). You may remember a fairly recent AfD that I started, and that you closed as "no consensus". I asked you about it on your talk, initially feeling that you had gotten it wrong. Your explanation to me changed my mind, and I ended up thinking that you had gotten it exactly right. Convincing me to change my opinion 180 degrees is one of the highest compliments I can give anyone, so you certainly got things right in that AfD. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No issues at all with this admin. Very positive interaction. I made an unusual vote on his RfA where I would have normally clearly supported. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I politely, but firmly expressed my disagreement with your collapsing of one of my comments (and please note that Jimbo Wales later expressed his full and unconditional support for my original language), your response was "You're lucky I didn't block you as well, get off my talk page." This was highly uncivil and clearly a bullying tactic. It was a misuse of your authority as an administrator. You should have politely responded with an explanation of your position and carried on, as you did when Jimbo weighed in on the issue in my defense. Might I suggest you try to treat all editors with the same level of respect that you treat Jimbo? You could learn a lot by studying the administrative techniques of admins such as Gogo Dodo and Tide rolls. They are extremely effective at preventing disruptive behavior and eliminating inappropriate content additions, without resorting to threats and personal attacks. Still, you are new at being an admin, and I expect you will mellow with time. Thank you for your service to Wikipedia. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You just made admin a little while ago and are already at 'mast? Oh, wait! ;-) You're doing OK, I guess. Don't agree with you on all. And don't think you know it all. But you are honest and care and learn. (And I know I don't know it all either!) Liked the recall thingie (how you had very different philosophy peeps there.) LUB, LUB the outreach of doing a newbie's guide. Keep up the good work and...avoid the green table. ;-) TCO (Reviews needed) 17:38, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh and write some articles, zoomie. I'll help ya! Will keep you sane and from becoming too much of a Cartman athori-TAY figure. ;-) TCO (Reviews needed) 17:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really like TParis. He closed a couple of discussions I was involved in, that could have been controversial, cleanly and without drama. I think I gave a barnstar for one or both of those. User:TParis/Awards is full of them, from reading them, apparently all for coolness under fire incidents like that. I came here to write that that is the best possible quality of an admin. Unfortunately, I follow some of the links above, and see that in at least a couple of incidents, with Ebikeguy and 86..., he didn't quite make it, and lost that fabulous cool. That's a shame, and something to work on. It is worth the effort, and that wall of awards shows he can do it. Now he just has to do it ... all the time. :-) --GRuban (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really do NOT like TParis. He is quick but superficial and when his failures are pointed out he starts to accuse the other of a hidden agenda and socket-puppetry instead of addressing those failures. Sorry for losing my temper at the end of the discussion in question. Thanks! Dumol (talk)

I can't comment generally because I haven't interacted with you, but I thought this was a perfect intervention: bold but undramatic and non-divisive, justified by a simple, logical explanation. If an admin has a temperament that allows them to exercise judgements without causing harm or patronising anyone then that's pretty close to ideal. Thanks. Exok (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've not had any real interactions with TParis. However, I do note that he courteously acknowledged my correction of a typo of his[2] at Wikipedia:Bot requests. I also think that putting his actions up for review is to be commended. -- Trevj (talk) 12:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the few interactions I had with TParis I had only positive experiences. He does seem to be an open-minded fellow to me so I support his continuation as admin. S_peakF_ree ^(talk)_(contribs) 21:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TParis almost deleted an article I published, then gave me great advices about how to rewrite it. I spent quite some time doing so, and once I was done I asked him to take a look at it and see if he would consider republishing it. Not only has he completely ignored me, he also deleted my request from his talkpage. I understand I'm not much experimented here, but I though that everyone could contribute, and that Administrators where here to help and guide. I really wished I had something better to write about my experience with TParis, for it somehow started constructively, but seems to be ending as very rude and inconsiderate. Wikidesign9 (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't delete it, it got archived by an automatic process. See this diff. I just hadn't had time to address it because I've barely been on Wikipedia the last couple of days. See my contributions, I've barely made 30 edits in 4 days or roughly 8 edits/day. I've been busy.--v/r - TP 21:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hello TParis, I'm sure like all of us you're very busy in real life, and there's nothing wrong with that. Last time I checked your User_talk you did post an answer to pretty much all other requests, posted before or after mine... including that one. And I did reach out to you twice before reporting here (more than a week after asking first for your feedback). Please understand my perspective: for whatever reason my post disappeared without even being acknowledged, and that didn't feel too nice. Especially when other posts did get an answer. That's just my user feedback. Wikidesign9 (talk) 04:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good job closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aziz Shavershian. I had seen the debate earlier and was worried that an admin would come along and supervote--but you did a good job closing based on consensus (or lack thereof, in this case). Mark Arsten (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2012 (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.