User talk:Andyvphil

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Signpost: 15 October 2012[edit]

October 2014[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Gamaliel (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Andyvphil (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I have been blocked by Gamaliel for not obeying his order that I "Go away"(his words) without getting my concerns about his actions as an administrator, and his unCIVILly calling me names ("racist"), fully addressed. The intro to the "archive" suggests I take it to some other page, but no such page was suggested. I have quoted some of the policies violated by this block immediately below the full text of the conversation that resulted in this block. Andyvphil (talk) 2:47 am, Today (UTC+1)

Accept reason:

Procedural closure of template; user is no longer blocked. Yunshui  07:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
  • Do you agree not to edit Gamaliel's page for the duration of this block? That is, no earlier than 01:03 GMT 21 Oct 2014 (if I got the time conversion right?--v/r - TP 03:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm asking to be unblocked because the block was in violation of policy. I want that addressed on its merits, not evaded. Andyvphil (talk) 04:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Given my previous disagreements with Andyvphil regarding his discussion style, I don't enjoy agreeing with him on this, but he's right. The block is bad on its face, and needs reverted. After that, a discussion thread can be opened at the appropriate noticeboard regarding Gamaliel's issues with things Andyvphil has posted. LHMask me a question 04:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Gamaliel finally unblocked at the very moment I was typing the above post. While that is a positive development, the unblock happened with an edit summary of "harass away", and was followed by a blanking and protection of Gamaliel's talkpage, and a further refusal of my request for diffs regarding the serious accusations leveled at Andyvphil. LHMask me a question 04:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for asking. How do you suggest I proceed so as to get access to the hidden text, so that I may properly contest that action? Andyvphil (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Since you are the person who made the post that was revdel'd, I think you should probably just ask an admin to tell you what the content was. At that point, you could either ask Gamaliel why it was revdel'd, if you're still unsure, or take it to the appropriate noticeboard. If you do so, I would strongly encourage you to mollify your strident tone as much as possible. I know you feel wronged--and have reason to feel that way, given the WP:INVOLVED block that was levied against you--but taking such a tone sometimes makes it difficult to get to any points you are trying to make in a given discussion. Regards, LHMask me a question 04:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I think my tone above was remarkably polite, under the circumstances. Are you an administrator? I can't say I know any that I would want to put the request to, and you are already somewhat familiar with the issue. Andyvphil (talk) 04:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not, nor do I particularly wish to be. Perhaps @TParis: could assist you? LHMask me a question 05:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, he is the obvious choice. Thanks again. Since you pinged him, I'll just wait here.
@Tparis: I believe the appropriate word is, "please".Andyvphil (talk) 05:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Your diff has been emailed to you.--v/r - TP 05:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

transcluded for convenience, the conversation from Gamaliel's talk page that resulted in a block:[edit]

removal from public archives[edit]

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.

I will be objecting to your actions here.[1] It will be helpful in defending my words if I have access to them. Will you supply this?

I will not re-add these edits to the page in question unless they are deemed unobjectionable. Andyvphil (talk) 12:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no objection to any complaint or review of my actions, but such a review should not serve as another soapbox to discuss negative, evidence-free theories about a living individual, and I fear that providing you with those offensive comments would lead to this, so I must decline your polite request.
Since we're being polite and not in the heat of an argument or an editing conflict, I will ask you to reconsider the things you have said about the subject of the article. You have repeatedly suggested that a prominent and successful academic of color was a failure as an academic and only succeeded as a result of affirmative action, despite ample evidence of his achievments in his field. This is incredibly offensive and racist, even if you do not mean it to be, and I find it particularly offensive personally as an academic who is a racial minority myself. Gamaliel (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamaliel, I suspect you will also wish to see this AN/I thread started by Andyvphil: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Participation by Admin Dreadstar in edit war at The Federalist (website) AFTER fully protecting the article. Prioryman (talk) 16:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
"You have repeatedly suggested that a prominent and successful academic of color was a failure as an academic and only succeeded as a result of affirmative action..."
No, I have not. He washed out at UTA, but succeeded in getting degrees at Harvard (with honors) and Columbia, and I have not suggested otherwise. Nor have I ever said that he succeeded "only" as a result of affirmative action. I have inquired of the new editors at NGT if they have seen evidence of material on help that Tyson was given because of his race that the group of editors previously in control of the page might have thought inappropriate to mention, as they had in the case of Tyson being kicked out of the UTA PhD program. If the material exists but has been, like the UTA failure, suppressed or minimized, it will be entirely appropriate to evaluate whether the judgement of the previously resident group of editors should be overruled.
This correction to your characterization of what I said is, I believe, similar to what I said in response to someone else who mischaracterized what I had written, and which was part of what you deleted. That I can reproduce similar material at will is obvious, and makes your claim that supplying me with the text you deleted will somehow empower me to repeat sentiments you find offensive, in a way that I would otherwise be unable to, obviously absurd.
The mischaracterization of what I had written was preceeded by the expression, "Bullshit!" Part of what you deleted was my response, not in kind, listing various incivilities to which I had been subjected in the course of this discussion, including your use of the exact same term in a revert edit comment. It was particularly inappropriate of you to removed this.
Inasmuch as your refusal does not serve your stated purpose, I renew my request for access to the deleted text. Andyvphil (talk) 04:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I have reviewed your deleted comments again and I believe you are not accurately or not completely summarizing them here. Nor do I feel you grasp the substance of my comments to you given that you have largely focused on the single word "only". It's immaterial whether you assert that someone only succeeded because of an racist assumption unsupported by evidence, or in part because of a racist assumption unsupported by evidence. Gamaliel (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm certainly not claiming to "accurately [and] completely summariz[e]" comments I cannot examine. The observation that, if Tyson benefited from assistance because of his race, that certain editors may have decided to suppress mention of that fact is not a "racist assertion", and the clearly overboard insertion of "only" in your mal-description of my words is something you are responsible for. You are WP:INVOLVED. I suggest you seek a second opinion. Andyvphil (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
If you make an assertion about someone with no evidence to back that assertion up beyond the color of that person's skin, then that is, by definition, racist. If you wish to expound further on this matter, find somewhere else to do so besides my talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
That is of course nonsense unless you exclude assertions about probability from the category "assertions". For example, if I assert someone is more likely to carry the gene for sickle cell anemia with no evidence other than the color of his skin that is a true fact, and truths are by definition not racist. Falsehood is the part of the definition of racism that you are omitting.
You're claim that I repeatedly made a "racist assertion" implies that you can supply an actual racist quote from my writings that one hiding revert will not have deleted. Please do so.
As to communicating with you on your talk page, you have an obligation to be responsive in relation to inquiries about your admin actions. I can't offhand supply the shortcut to the relevant paragraph , though I read it recently, but I assume you know which one it is. Something about ACCOUNTABILITY, maybe? Andyvphil (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I do not have the obligation to repeatedly engage with someone who insists on making blanket racist assertions. I will ask you a second time, politely, to drop it because I find your comments personally offensive, for reasons I have already explained to you and you choose to ignore, and in violation of Wikipedia policies. I will also ask you a second time, politely, to take this conversation elsewhere. The third time I have to do either one in regards to my talk page will be the last, and will not be polite, and may involve blocking and/or profanity in multiple languages. In case you do not get the hint, I am also archiving this conversation. Gamaliel (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

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.


[[I added the following response after the "archive" box [2]]]

Putting a box around our conversation to date does not relieve you from your duty as an administrator to "[respond] promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about [your] administrative actions." In addition to concealing the content and existence of my response to a personal attack, you have mischaracterized what I have supposedly written on multiple occasions both as to its exact content and character ("racist") while refusing to produce any examples to which those mischaracterizations can be compared. Your threat to further clown yourself by using still more abusive language and/or a block to respond to what you have previously admitted was a civil inquiry is noted. Andyvphil (talk) 00:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

[[This was reverted with the comment: "What part of 'go away' do you not understand?" ['https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gamaliel&diff=prev&oldid=630310213]]]

[[I placed the following in the wrong place, then attempted to self-revert (intending to place it correctly) and discovered a block had gone into effect. G had already reverted it, with a dismissive "m".[3]]]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gamaliel&diff=prev&oldid=630310213 I won't revert your removal of my immediately preceeding comment from your talk page, as I understand you have wider than usual latitude here. Though I also understand that selective removals can be considered problematic. I suggest you self revert.

I understand "go away" perfectly well. What part of my observation that "go away" is an out-of-policy response to a civil inquiry as to your administrative actions are you having difficulty understanding? If you are having a problem remaining civil there is, I have discovered, a procedure you are directed to follow. You're much more familiar with process than I. You must know this. Andyvphil (talk) 00:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Some relevant policy, much of it violated:[edit]

Wikipedia:Administrators WP:Administrators[edit]

This page in a nutshell: Administrators are... expected to observe a high standard of conduct, to use the tools fairly, and never to use them to gain advantage in a dispute. ...

Administrator conduct[edit]

...consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. ...if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies... while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address...

Accountability[edit]

WP:ADMINACCT Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools... Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.

Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner... may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for: ...

  • Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring,...)

...

  • Failure to communicate[6] – this can be either to users (e.g., lack of suitable... explanations of actions), or to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought).
  • Repeated or consistent poor judgment

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand[edit]

Communication[edit]

[4] 7) ... all editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues. This is especially true for administrators in regard to administrative actions. Such expected communication includes: ... using accurate and descriptive edit and administrative action summaries; and responding promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about their administrative actions.

Here's a list[edit]

Of your last 1,000 edits to mainspace.[5] Which one are you most proud of as an example of your most important work? Take a minute to think about it. Do you even need a minute? I thought not. Viriditas (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You have way too much time on your hands if you have time for this kind of pathetic attempted snark. I have three candidates. What's yours? Andyvphil (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy to share. Of my last 1000 edits, I'm most proud of: Molly Crabapple (major rewrite); Plaincourault Chapel (new article), Yamaha NS-10 (Good Article review); Cebrennus rechenbergi (major rewrite, DYK review); Paul Conrad (rewrite and GA nom); Cannabis and time perception (new article); Frances Ames (new article); The Exaltation of the Flower (new article); Chain Reaction (sculpture) (rewrite, still working on it); List of City of Santa Monica Designated Historic Landmarks (completed major update); Pay Any Price: Greed, Power, and Endless War (new article). OK, now you? Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
My, you are one busy Wikipedian. All that and a sustained effort to edit war all mention of Tyson's failings out of Wikipedia, too. In my case I would think 1000 mainspace edits might take me back to 2008, but I am most recently proud of inserting the first hint of fairness to Darren Wilson into the "Shooting of Michael Brown" article, mentioning the eyewitness inadvertently heard describing Brown charging Wilson. Stuck on the page, too, as the resident editors, though mostly with biases different than mine, are not so deeply engaged in denying reality as the Tyson claque. Andyvphil (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Because there are only so many hours in a day, I'm not as familiar with Darren Wilson and Michael Brown as you are. Could you tell me what was unfair about it before you modified the article? You don't have to give me an essay or anything, but I am genuinely curious about the topic and how you think you improved it. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Reminder[edit]

(Redacted this material due to BLP concerns) --John (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Topic Ban proposed at ANI[edit]

I have proposed that you be topic banned from all edits related to Biographies of Living Persons, and that discretionary sanctions be applied to your edits. This is a sub heading under your ANI thread, and may be found at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic Ban of Andyvphil. This has the side effect, hopefully, of separating the discussion of your edits from the discussion of what, if anything, should be done about Gamaliel's. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 16:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent ANI[edit]

By the way, it was stupid to put in that ANI request. Not only did you obviously get yourself in hot water, but even if EVERYONE there agreed with you, they still wouldn't have the power to do anything about it. Only the arbitration committee in normal circumstances (and stewards/jimbo in extraordinary circumstances) have the authority to remove someone from being an admin. So what you were asking for they didn't have the authority to do. Read this if you want to know more:Wikipedia:Removing_administrator_rights. --Obsidi (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

That's interesting, and thanks for the link, but contrary to what drmies says, I am not a "procedural wonk". ANI was recommended to me by the admin who I asked to provide me with the revdel text (which he, unlike Gamaliel, courteously did). He seems quite determined that Gamaliel's lack of "white privilege" should protect his bit, and did not provide the link you have, but perhaps he did not realize I would be interested in it. You have failed to note that part (b) of my request was, iirc, merely a request for information on how to begin, which I gather you have now provided. And part (a) is, I still suppose, within the ambit of ANI? In any case, the hot water does not discomfort me much. The surprisingly unanimous (I was expecting some, but didn't realize the rot had gone this far) three-minute hate that was the reaction is so obviously Orwellian that it has occurred to me that I may want to seek attention to it outside Wikipedia as the best way to improve the workings of the project. If they ban me without providing plausible diffs, that'll help. Andyvphil (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Asking to get the revdel information sent to you is perfectly acceptable to go to ANI for that (just not the rest of the hornets nest). --Obsidi (talk) 02:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I already have it. I was told not to quote it. The request is not to get it, but to have it undeleted. Andyvphil (talk) 02:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I agree with Obsidi. Your only viable option would've been to open an Arbcom request for Gamaliel's tools which, if they went by the letter of the law, would have resulted in desysopping, in my opinion. The block was very out-of-process, ass was the protection of his own talkpage, and (possibly) the revdel, depending upon what you said in it. In all cases, if he thought admin action was needed, he should've gone to the appropriate noticeboard, not done it himself. That said, it was a terrible idea to open that ANI. You have angered so many editors with whom you disagree politically that it was bound to turn out poorly for you. LHMask me a question 00:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
As I said, I was just doing what I understood an admin to whom I posed the question recommended. If the denizens at ANI want to clearly demonstrate just how hostile the environment at Wikipedia is for editors who don't share their political views, that may not be entirely a bad thing. Timid responses to intimidation is a part of the problem I will not be contributing to. Andyvphil (talk) 00:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
If you're referring to me, I specifically said that "I wouldn't recommend you do that, I have a feeling that other editors are going to take issue with your style of communication and editing" with regard to ANI. I listed it because it was available - not that I recommended it.--v/r - TP 17:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I was referring to you, and I understood you to say it was the proper forum. I understood your recommendation against my doing so to be based not on it being the wrong place, but because I would be unpopular there. And also because you did not wish me to pursue sanctions against Gamalael. Which, however, I will continue to pursue. Andyvphil (talk) 20:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Obsidi That link says "The community also has the power to remove administrator access from any contributor." and "Established processes for removal of administrator access include:" - Also Wikipedia:Requests_for_de-adminship#Current_methods_of_requesting_de-adminship says DR can remove the bit - So If the ANI had come back with a "remove-bit" consensus (And assuming that consensus was considered fair and large enough), its a bit (pun!) of an open question as to what would have happened. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess you could go to arbcom at that point to try to enforce the community consensus (and they would be more likely to remove an admin with community consensus behind it). But I mean as a matter of actual ability to do so, a community consensus couldn't remove the bit (I mean no one has the ability in the software to do so). --Obsidi (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP[edit]

Hi. I thought I should remind you that WP:BLP applies everywhere on the project, including this user talk page. I noticed some material on the page that contravened this policy and removed it. If you restore this material, or post any more material like this anywhere else at Wikipedia, I will block you. Given your history this will be a long block. Only go down this road if a long block is really what you want. Best wishes, --John (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@John: Please elaborate on what was said[6] that contravened BLP policy, per the policies on admin accountability quoted above. Since when can't one engage in an exchange of opinions on one's own talk page? Do I have to provided citations for assertions of fact there? What assertion of fact on my part do you feel needs such a citation? Andyvphil (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
See Beeblebrox's comments below. If you are having trouble comprehending our BLP policy it is well that you are no longer permitted to even discuss anything to do with living people. At this point you should think long and hard about your participation here. You indicate below that you are questioning whether you fit in here. I encourage you to continue with this self-examination. I would really like to see you in six months editing with a better appreciation of what you can and can't say about living people, and able to have your restriction lifted. The first step in that journey would be to realise that you have been way out of line in your recent behaviour, including the section I removed. The deleted material is still visible in article history. Why don't you look at it yourself and try to figure this out as an exercise in your development as a Wikipedian? The alternative I fear will be a long or indefinite block. You need to make a very conscious and thoughtful choice here about how you handle your restriction. Choose well. --John (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
@John: I don't feel the need for any re-education. You are being called to account for your actions as an administrator in accord with the policy quoted so conveniently above. Please start by naming ONE statement of fact by me in the material you redacted that you feel is in doubt. If there are none, you can start by naming ONE opinion that I am not entitled to hold and express here. I'm trying to make it very simple for you to be accountable. Presumably you do not have GAmalel's excuses for melting down instead. Andyvphil (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Mmm. Perhaps that is the problem, that you lack awareness of how your behaviour comes over to others. This is a private website and you have no freedom of speech here. If you continue to misbehave you will be asked to leave. I'm off to bed now and I suggest, as before, that you spend some time in self-reflection. That way may lie enlightenment. Anger, argument and self-righteousness are what got you to where you are. Let go of them, would be my advice. Good luck. --John (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
"This is a private website and you have no freedom of speech here."
Do you mind if I quote you? That's juicy.
Accusing me of self-righteousness is, in this context, amusing. It's not as if I'm censoring you.
It is true I have no 1st Amendment right to say anything here. But if there's a community consensus against discussions such as I and Viriditas had (yes, I understood he was trolling for something similarly juicy from me) I must have missed its formation. Do you have a link? Andyvphil (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
It certainly looks like that, doesn't it, but in all honesty, I wasn't. I really wanted to have a discussion about your contributions and how you felt you improved the Shooting of Michael Brown topic. However, you didn't reply to my inquiries. After I saw the ANI thread, I added my experience, which included mentioning our discussion. I'm sorry that you feel I was trolling or trying to entrap you. I wasn't, and that just isn't my style. You know, there's a real easy way for you out of this mess. If you are interested in the path, all you have to do is start making quality contributions. It's that simple. Stop attacking people and stop playing the victim. Viriditas (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it certainly looks like that, doesn't it? I figured you were looking for material to use against me at AN/I, and you did, though it didn't amount to much. I figure that, most recently, penetrating the hagiographic obscuration of Tyson's UTA washout was a quality contribution. And I'm not playing the victim. I was the victim of Gamaliel's misbehavior, etc.
And I'm glad we had the conversation, even if we talked past each other. It game me the opportunity to organize my thoughts about Tyson's "apology"/apologia on paper, and was the occasion for John's censorship, which is a useful example of the sickness plaguing Wikipedia.Andyvphil (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP Topic Ban[edit]

@Beeblebrox: Am I right to assume this appeal time limit is to the standard direct appeal (through the Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System). That he can still appeal to the WP:Arbitration Committee/Ban Appeals Subcommittee (of which I know you are one of the five members) or to appeals to Jimbo? (I'm not saying that either of these will actually work, just that is still possible.) --Obsidi (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
WP:BASC does not hear appeals of topic bans, so that would be a no on that aspect. I don't believe UTRS does either, they review blocks, not community-based sanctions. Jimbo's talk page is apparently always an option for just about anyone, but the chance that he would unilaterally overturn a community sanction is practically zero. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) No, not at all. UTRS and BASC are for site bans. In fact, UTRS isn't even for site bans, it's only for blocks. The appeal options are 1) Beeblebrox himself, 2) AN/ANI thread, 3) An Arbcom case/clarification, 4) Jimbo.--v/r - TP 19:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it is important to note that any appeal to me would have to be based on the idea that I misinterpreted what the consensus was on these issues, and not the underlying dispute itself. I closed the discussion because once I read the whole thing it seemed abundantly clear what the consensus was. Although there was not total unanimity the vast majority of commenters expressed serious concerns about Andyvphil's editing of biographical topics, and supported some sort of sanction. The real message here is this:A topic ban is the community's way of letting someone know this is probably their last chance to change their behavior. Andyvphil is probably nearing the end of his rope here if he cannot reign in his attitude. The community did not see fit to issue a total siteban, so reform is still possible and the sanction could easily be lifted if he shows restraint int the coming months. If instead he should endlessly appeal the sanction and/or continue with his combative attitude then it will probably go the other way fairly quickly. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Beeblebrox Since the appeals process has been raised, just for clarification, this topic ban was done under the standard community authority, and not under WP:NEWBLPBAN DS correct? (As a DS ban would have a different set of appeals processes in place I believe) Gaijin42 (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
That's correct. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)It should be noted that, though it's not a !vote, my unofficial "nose count" was only 23-11 in favor, with most of the opposers asking for diffs of the supposed clear "racism" alleged in Andyvphil's edits, but only being provided with diffs where he stated his view that the subject of that BLP had benefited from affirmative action. While the !vote is slightly more than 2-1 in favor, that's hardly an "abundantly clear" consensus, at least in my view, particularly given the weak (and almost wholly unsupported) accusations of racism that were being cavalierly bandied about regarding Avp's edits. LHMask me a question 20:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
"...that "affirmative action" had almost certainly been a consideration ..." I've been very careful about being precise in what I was saying in a hostile environment. Lets not stop now. (The opponents characterizing it, not so much. Maybe I should batch some up in an NPA action.) Andyvphil (talk) 21:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
At this point it doesn't matter (WP:DEADHORSE). --Obsidi (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The near-unanimity of the folks insisting that BLP reads, "Don't even think of inquiring into facts that might pee on the leg of any of the liberal icon statues in Wikipedia" is not in doubt. For, "last chance to change your behavior", read "last chance to conform your political attitudes, or accept that you are racist slime here on Wikipedia". There's something in the instructions for closing discussions about weighing arguments, but no one can be forced to do that when they don't want to. Andyvphil (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Woo! This place is getting more Stalinist all the time. I just noticed the section immediately above. Free speech? What free speech? Are you sure you want to be a member of this club? Andyvphil (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You may note that my closing contained no judgement whatsoever as to whether you are a closet racist or not. That's not really something that can be judged by consensus, only you actually know if you are or are not. What consensus can judge is the appropriateness of your edits, both in articles and on talk pages, and that is the issue this remedy seeks to deal with.

While I did read the entire conversation and did weigh arguments, if I go back now and "snout count" I get a result, judging by 'bolded statements, of 29 supporting some sort of sanction and 9 opposing (I note that some supporters favored a lesser sanction and some opposers self-identified their opposition as "weak". So it's closer to three to one in favor of some sort of sanction even if we disregard all the other conversation that did not use bolded votes.

In other words, it's not your opinions that are the problem, it is the way in which other users perceive you trying to slant content to agree with your point of view and your combative, seemingly intractable approach to discussing these issues with other editors. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

"What consensus can judge is the appropriateness of your edits..."
The mob can reach a conclusion, such as "Inquiring into facts that might pee on the leg of Tyson's statue must be stopped because we don't like it." Calling that "judgement" traduces the word. That you chose to translate that conclusion into an indefinate block reflects badly on you. Andyvphil (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I've looked at your close, which includes "Gamaliel has acknowledged their error, and the consensus here seems to indicate that is a sufficient response".
Hey, what is it with this strange plural business? Is it the secret handshake of some some society you share with drmies?
Saying "Gamaliel has acknowledged his error" is false, both as regards his mischaracterization of me and my words ("repeatedly...blatantly racist"), and the impropriety of blocking me for calling him to account for his admin actions. Does your judgement ever come back from holiday, or is is gone for good? Andyvphil (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, no secret cabal here. If there had been, I would have suggested that Beeblebrox change "self-identified" to "qualified". Besides that, though, yeah, I think we're in agreement. It's called consensus. Correct me if I'm wrong, but your "strange plural" comment is in reference to "their error", a perfectly acceptable use of singular they. You are free, of course, to consider consensus as mob rule; that opinion is yours to have, but to me (us?) it comes across as sour grapes. Understandable, but not a very valid reason to question Beeblebrox's judgment, on vacation or otherwise. Drmies (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I see, you're both gender-inclusivity cranks. It's "perfectly acceptable" only in your small group, but has a signaling function for extreme leftism (I assume there are oddball exceptions). Good to know about Beeblebrox, and any future encounters with "them". Andyvphil (talk) 23:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I think Beeblebrox claims to be a "he", and I don't think he minds being referred to that way. That you think we're extreme leftists for not presuming someone's gender is the funniest thing I have heard all day, and for that I thank you. Drmies (talk) 23:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
I already knew about you. He's put his signalling on display. I don't need his MLA membership number to draw the right conclusions. You live a reality-free world where the existence of diversity goals and timetables tells you exactly nothing about the benefits, if any, for someone who can enable checking the right box, and it's racist to even consider the possibility of it being otherwise. I'm laughing too. Andyvphil (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Andy, I understand that you are upset. Generally nobody is pleased with being topic banned, so that's not surprising. However, if you continue to attack other users and hurl absolutely baseless, bizarre accusations around you are going to find yourself blocked, probably for a very long time. When one is getting very upset about matters on Wikipedia, the best course of action is to just walk away and do something else for a while. I would suggest you do yourself a favor and take a walk, watch some TV, or whatever you prefer to do to get your mind off of issues that are bothering you. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

"Saying "Gamaliel has acknowledged his error" is false, both as regards his mischaracterization of me and my words ("repeatedly...blatantly racist"), and the impropriety of blocking me for calling him to account for his admin actions." Those are your words I'm talking about. If ignorance isn't involved, and you claim to have read the ANI, then what we have is indifference to the truth.
As I said in there somewhere, my first encounter with drmies was his coming to this page to declare that deleting a complaint from an "editor" about the indifference of Wikipedia to the truth was "not censorship", thereby proving the guy's point. I'll retract this observation if the the reason you used "they" to refer to Gamalael was a knowledge that he prefers it - that would be courtesy - but if you initiate this ridiculous practice on your own, then it is indeed diagnostic of your politics. I haven't seen your politics in action before this, but I have seen what drmies calls racism, and if you share the signalling there is every reason to believe that your neutrality on the issues presented is a pose. Andyvphil (talk) 02:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Alright That's enough, folks. Time to give Andy some room.--v/r - TP 02:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't much mind the baiting and demands that I recant. I'm contemptuous of it. I am anyway effectively lifetime banned from fixing the errors I run across when consulting Wikipedia, which has been my main interaction with it for some time (apart from simply consulting it).
I have never found AGF problematic with you, unlike with the likes of drmies, John and now, unfortunately Beeblebrox, despite our differences. I would therefor be interested in your comments on John's redaction from this page. Is this really the practice now? Andyvphil (talk)r ~

Arbitration enforcement request[edit]

Andyvphil, I see you've posted an arbitration enforcement request against Gamaliel at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Gamaliel. What on earth are you trying to achieve by doing that? Prioryman (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

According to you, it must be because I'm racist. Andyvphil (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I've removed your submission because whatever it was, it wasn't a request for arbitration enforcement. If you mean to initiate arbitration proceedings before the Committee, you can do so at WP:RFAR.  Sandstein  07:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. Andyvphil, the link you just posted on Gamaliel's talk page directs them to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gamaliel, which doesn't exist. If I were you I would think very hard before posting an arbitration case request because your own conduct is inevitably going to come under close scrutiny if you do. You're topic-banned now. I don't think it would be wise to risk being banned entirely, which is a definite possibility. Prioryman (talk) 07:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
By the way, I've removed your notification from Gamaliel's talk page as your original request has been declined and it didn't go anywhere anyway. If you do take the step of refiling it on RFAR then please feel free to revert my removal. Prioryman (talk) 07:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
AVP, you're fighting too many dragons at the same time. Gamaliel is not your main problem right now! - Wikidemon (talk) 08:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not "fighting dragons". I can't quite figure out why I ended up on the wrong page, but I'll put it on the right page tomorrow. Andyvphil (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually it looks like my error was simply filing at the bottom of the page[7] rather than the bottom of the right section. Is this wrong? Andyvphil (talk) 09:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Did it again, properly this time, I hope. Andyvphil (talk) 10:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You still need to include the confirmations that Gamaliel was informed about the ArbCom request. --Obsidi (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. It was done, but I neglected that in my location screwup. Andyvphil (talk)