User talk:Hidden Tempo

Reply

Years ago the New Jersey police were criticized for disproportionately stopping African American drivers on the New Jersey Turnpike. The speed limit on the southern part of that road is 65mph but due to lax enforcement typical traffic flow is closer to 80mph. That discrepancy between law and custom created a situation in which the individual African American driver, though disproportionately targeted, had no defense: all drivers were guilty and African Americans as a subset of all drivers were also guilty. I see parallels when comparing the behaviors outlined in WP:TENDENTIOUS with that of editors in the Donald Trump article. I don't recall whether the problems in New Jersey were corrected but they did prompt in a Justice Department study.

I recently (though somewhat lazily) began aggregating sanction enforcement data for analysis. Whether my effort's justified or any useful patterns will emerge is to be seen but if it interests you I'd welcome the collaboration. James J. Lambden (talk) 21:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

• Sorry about your appeal being declined. Please don't be disheartened. I've faced a similar 6 month topic ban myself. My advise to you is to familiarize yourself with WP:RULES in the interim period.
• These may also be of some interest: WP:GOAD, The unblockables. Soham321 (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you Soham321, and thanks to all those who helped defend me, confirmed systemic bias on Wikipedia, and helped gain consensus that a 6-month ban was completely uncalled for, despite any minor policy violations I may have committed: @JFG, @TheTimesAreAChanging, SashiRolls, @Masem, TParis, James J. Lambden and anyone else I may have missed. Of course, not one to admit wrongdoing when I'm not guilty, even after being punished, I don't consider the appeal decline (a foregone conclusion at AE) to be the end. I am drafting a petition for an immediate nullification of my ban due to a wanton wielding of administrator privileges toward bans/blocks of those who are viewed as being supporters of a certain Presidential candidate, who I am not able to mention because of the aforementioned TBAN. It may also be necessary to propose a stripping of admin privileges, although I think this would be a tougher sell at ANI. I plan to base the petition primarily on this edit, in which I outline various alarming edits and actions from the administrator in question. If any (or preferably all) of you would like to contribute to the final version and/or contribute a statement of your own, it would be highly appreciated and could be the beginning of actually creating change on this project and bringing neutrality back to Wikipedia. If not, of course that's fine too, as I don't mind going it alone. The diff that I am using now is only from the first page of that sysop's talk page, and I didn't even try to dig through her archives. It's possible there are far more heinous revelations yet to be discovered lurking around in there somewhere, so if anyone knows of any, I would gladly accept any diffs to strengthen our case. Thank you again for all who provided me with assistance throughout that whole ordeal.Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

• Per WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications, if you are unhappy with the result of your ban appeal your only remaining option is to go directly to the Arbitration Committee per WP:ARCA. You are not entitled to appeal at ANI. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:07, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• Thanks for the ping. Indeed your only recourse now would be to file an ArbCom case, but you won't get anywhere (and won't get any support from editors sympathetic to your situation) if you keep it aggressive. You were sanctioned for a bias problem, which can be disputed and argued to be a good-faith crusade against systemic bias, and for a courtesy problem, which is unfortunately still visible in your aspersions against Bishonen and others. It may be difficult to keep calm but it is absolutely necessary in everyday editing, in talk page discussions, in incident reports and even more so on appeal and at the "Supreme Court" of Wikipedia. Think long and hard before acting… All the best! — JFG ^talk 05:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Just wanted to wish you a very merry Christmas and a very happy New Year. Soham321 (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!! Thanks again for all your help. Hidden Tempo (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Missing articles

I notice a conspicuous absence of the articles Tin-pot tyrant and/or Tin-pot dictator (a redirect.) Much of the relevant content would precede 1932, which is outside the scope of your topic ban if you're so inclined. James J. Lambden (talk) 22:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey, @James J. Lambden. Thanks for the heads up, although I find it hard to find the motivation to edit those pages, as my history is more than a little rough. Also it seems that only one area on Wikipedia (which I can't talk about without receiving an e-caning) is the primary target of the coordinated efforts to remove neutrality and insert the worldviews of the editors. I just can't use Wikipedia for that topic anymore, as it's become just so unreliable and egregiously dishonest. I really like the table you compiled on your page, though. It paints a very clear, albeit disturbing picture of the trend that these people deny exists. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Structurally Wikipedia reminds me of Wall St in the sense that few at the top benefit disproportionately in a system contingent upon mass participation. To put the analogy concretely: if the average investor withdrew their funds financial speculation would become less lucrative. Wikipedia relies on immense, often tedious effort of IP and apolitical editors so that a small few may use it to advance an agenda. How one best corrects such a system is a difficult question but I suspect change must come from the many, not the few. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

ANI report

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. jps (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I've temporarily blocked this account for using a sockpuppet to evade your topic ban. Points for honesty in admitting it. Appeal options are detailed at this page if required. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the FYI Euryalus, and for the leniency. Also thank you to the eagle-eyed User #9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS for ratting me out to the ANI board, although @NorthBySouthBaranof actually caught my careless error within minutes and already ran to the Sockpuppet board to tell everybody about his discovery. You two successfully got rid of a dissenting view with my banishment, thereby bolstering your BLP-violating phrasing. I deserve to be punished. Of course, you both arguably should've been warned and possibly t-banned long ago for tendentious activist editing and User #9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS's egregiously uncivil behavior and failure to assume good faith, but that's another story. As long as you have a San Francisco-approved worldview and cite the "correct" sources, you are all but immune to any form of punishment on Wikipedia. Just another day in Silicon Valley, I suppose. I look forward to seeing you on the AE board in May. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

No worries. The enforced absence might be a useful time to do some sports drafts here in your userspace. Being from the South Pacific, I kind of admire the way you all care about your politics enough to engage so vigorously in these disputes. But the socking, and the POV-pushing, are kind of obvious from a review of your edit histories - please don't do these again when the block (and ultimately the topic ban) expire. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:23, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Doug Weller talk 08:39, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Hidden Tempo (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Hidden Tempo". The reason given for Hidden Tempo's block is: "Wikipedia Checkuser.svg CheckUser evidence has determined that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely to prevent abuse. " Hi, I think there's been some kind of mistake? I'm already currently in the process of serving out a 1-month block by @Euryalus as punishment for discussing politics with another account. Many people share this IP address, so I'd prefer if we can just limit all these blocks to accounts rather than the entire IP address. No abuse prevention countermeasures required, here. Thanks.

• Blocking administrator: Doug Weller (talk • blocks)

---

Decline reason: There hasn't been anyone other than you using this particular IP address in almost three months. If anyone else is prevented from editing, we'll address the autoblock then. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 19:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, DoRD. I apologize, I'm still a bit confused. On 2/17, Euryalus informed me that I was blocked for 1 month for ban evasion[1], and woke up this morning to an indefinite block after not making any edits during that time period. Could I please have a clarification as to the reason for this new block and why it's been changed from 1 month to indefinite despite having committed no further infractions? Thank you in advance. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

No, your account, not the IP address, has been blocked indefinitely for ban evasion before your block. This is in addition to your one month block for The Patriot Way account. That created an autoblock on the IP address which is just temporary. And yes, I obviously know that the IP address is used by multiple users. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see, I've removed the autoblock so that other users can use the IP address. Doug Weller talk 16:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thanks @Doug Weller. Euryalus left a message on my (Hidden Tempo) page saying that he blocked me for one month on "this account," for leniency. I was under the impression that The Patriot Way was the account that got hit with the indefinite block, since it was used for the ban evasion. Is this not the case? I've contributed hundreds of productive edits with Hidden Tempo on non-political articles to help build the encyclopedia, and would like to continue doing so. Thanks again.

EDIT: Okay, definitely not "hundreds" on this account! I think I wasn't logged in for most of my edits on sports and film-related topics. But I'm done with Wikipedia political articles during my ban.Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

My understanding was that blocks are not to be used punitively, but rather to prevent abuse. If there was an incident of abuse prior to the 2/17 1-month block, and none since (with the agreement not to commit further acts of ban evasion), wouldn't it be fair to say that a block is no longer necessary to prevent abuse? Especially as I've already agreed to comply with the terms of my ban for the remainder of its term? Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Explained at WP:VPT. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I'm not familiar with the specifics of checkuser or this particular case but if the blocked IP listed (127.0.0.1) is in fact linked to this user's edits that would indicate a problem with checkuser or the wiki software. It is not technically possible for this user to have edited from a localhost address without direct access to Wikipedia's servers. Maybe I have misunderstood the situation, but I suggest asking someone with technical experience to reevaluate. James J. Lambden (talk) 19:52, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Evidently "127.0.0.1 is the loopback Internet protocol (IP) address also referred to as the localhost. The address is used to establish an IP connection to the same machine or computer being used by the end-user." It's obviously not the address linked to his edits. Hidden Tempo, this was undisclosed ban evasion prior to the block. I'm sure if you think about it you'll recall it. Not of course by TPW. Doug Weller talk 20:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Correct. Essentially it's saying Hidden Tempo's web request came to wikipedia from wikipedia. Unless he/she is a wikipedia employee or gained access to their servers illicitly that is impossible. If this is due to my lack of understanding I apologize, but I can tell you for certain it is not possible that the address listed in the block message (127.0.0.1) is the address this user edited from. Perhaps the glitch is in the reporting and a different address should have been listed. Would you mind if I posted this on a noticeboard for review and if not, is there a checkuser-specific noticeboard? James J. Lambden (talk) 20:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC) @James J. Lambden: the appropriate place is probably the Village Pump (technical). It's nothing to do with CU. I've never seen that sort of address before using CU. Doug Weller talk 20:28, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Excellent, thank you. Done. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)