Jump to content

User talk:Hidden Tempo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hidden Tempo (talk | contribs) at 16:15, 27 September 2017 (→Review of block). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Were you replying to me?

The comment you made here, looks like it was replying to my comment. Perhaps got a little mixed up on the format there. PackMecEng (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, PackMecEng, I addressed BullRangifer in my comment but maybe it was confusing since it was directly after your edit. I didn't want to stomp on your edit by cramming mine in there. Was that not right? Feel free to move my reply to above yours if that's more appropriate. Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I was just curious. I have no issue with where it is. PackMecEng (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for repeated disruptive, tendentious, and agenda-driven editing and edit-warring, despite numerous previous sanctions for similar behavior. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  MastCell Talk 22:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First unblock request

Original Unblock Request/Discussion/Support and Opposition
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Superceded by #Revised/fresh unblock request below

{{unblock|reason=

  • MastCell - I am baffled why you chose to block me for edit warring, when there were multiple editors reinstating the contentious material without consensus. I did violate the 3RR rule one time unintentionally, but surely an indef isn't an order? I went through the proper channels - discussing the material on the talk page, and then to the No original research noticeboard. The material you reference is a citation to an opinion piece in Politico, claiming Stephen Miller attacked "Americans" for a "deficit of nationalism," but neither claim is present in the Politico op-ed.
  • In regards to the tendentious/hyper-partisan editing, please refer to MelanieN, who I have had prior productive collaboration with on pages such as James Comey and Sean Spicer. In fact, the only time a WP:BATTLEGROUND emerges is when I am personally attacked, usually by Volunteer Marek (can cite diffs if necessary). Of course I do not have clean hands - I should have stepped back and let cooler heads prevail, but to absolve all blame of that user is surely not appropriate.
  • Finally, I am completely confused why my edit summary describing a Politico contributor as a "Trump hater" is somehow unforgivable, while referring to a living person as a "piece of shit," "bigot," and a "misogynist" with no diffs whatsoever is somehow acceptable. The user also suggested a ban of "Americans" from political articles. I will apologize for the "Trump hater" remark but I do not see the basis of the two standards. For these reasons, I am requesting a lifting of the indefinite block.


I have proved myself to be a collaborative editor, who made a mistake by violating 3RR a few days ago. I should have waited for my OR noticeboard posting[1] to come to some conclusion. My contribution history shows (with the exception of some heated content disputes) that I am here to improve the encyclopedia and that I strive for neutrality in every article, even taking my qualms with material to the NPOV noticeboard.[2] I have always tried to leave my own political leanings (libertarian, mostly) at the door when I log in, and have made edits that reflect positively and negatively on all sides of the political spectrum.
MastCell has stated that I have had "numerous sanctions" for previous behavior. I have been sanctioned twice: a 6-month topic ban[3] for soapboxing and stating[4] that "Chelsea Clinton [used] Foundation funds to pay for her wedding," which was sourced to two RS[5][6], one of which used the headline "Clinton aide says Foundation paid for Chelsea’s wedding, WikiLeaks emails show," and once for semi-inadvertent sockpuppetry which I immediately admitted(no diffs because apparently there is no SPI archive). I was blocked for a very brief period during my AE appeal of the topic ban for describing Hillary Clinton's trustworthiness poll numbers as "feeble," which was described as a BLP violation.[7] I have not violated BLP policy since, and have not been engaging in soapboxing. I have also never received a sanction for edit warring, and if unblocked, will not pose a threat for a repeat violation of this policy. Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

}}

Black_Kite - you stated that my M.O. is to insert "badly sourced/NPOV" material into articles? May I request diffs of this for an example? I strive to always make sure my additions are properly sourced so I am astounded at this accusation. I also have made recent postings at the NPOV and BLP noticeboard, as I do not reinstate contentious material without seeking consensus on the talk-page. I feel this indefinite block is highly unwarranted, and there is a lot of backstory that is being missed here. I believe at least a few administrators admitted to not even reading the entire AN/I report (not that I can blame them), but there were a lot of half-truths and falsehoods stated in that report. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Replying only to the last point in your unblock request: you're comparing apples and oranges, which is why you perceive "two standards". You used your personal, unsupported judgement that a journalist was a "Trump hater" as a pretext to justify your edit-warring and repeated removal of properly-sourced material. It's not a matter of the language per se; it's the fact that you apparently believe that this rationale was sufficient to justify edit-warring. If you'd simply called a journalist a "Trump hater" in passing, or on a user talkpage somewhere, then I wouldn't view that as a serious, block-worthy issue. It's not the epithet you used; it's the fact that you believe that the epithet justifies edit-warring. MastCell Talk 23:10, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was my fault - I shouldn't have called the journalist a Trump-hater. The primary reason for my revert was that WikiVoice was being used to make a statement of fact from an opinion article. It is my understanding that this is not permitted, and a BLP violation. Per WP:BLP, poorly sourced or unsourced material about a living person must be removed immediately. If I had the wrong understanding of policy (which apparently I did), then I acknowledge my mistake. But the removal wasn't because of Greenfield's personal views about the president. It was because it was an opinion article, used to make a statement of fact about a living person. And please at least skim the article. The material misrepresented the contents of the source. The Politico op-ed simply did not support the content. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:13, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did read the POLITICO source, as part of my effort to figure out what was going on at the Wikipedia article. The source states that "to label someone a 'cosmopolitan' carries with it a clear implication that there is something less patriotic, less loyal... someone who is not a 'real American.'". Wikipedia editors paraphrased the source to say that, by using the term, Miller "attacked his American critics for a deficit of nationalism". Now, while that may not be the ideal way to paraphrase the source, it is at least consistent with the source's content and is within the spectrum of reasonable suggestions. I mean, a reasonable person would allow that accusing someone of a lack of patriotism or national loyalty—or accusing them of not being a "real American"—is in the same ballpark as attacking them for "a deficit of nationalism". Again, not the phrasing I would choose, but also not completely unsupported by the source, nor grounds for edit-warring. MastCell Talk 23:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is Jeff Greenfield's opinion - written in his Politico op-ed. Did you see the transcript of the press conference?[8] Miller said nothing even resembling Greenfield's allegations. There is never an excuse for edit-warring (in which two other editors were participating), but I am trying to communicate that I was removing the material because an opinion piece was used to make a statement of fact on Wikipedia, which is not permitted. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note - could I suggest a reduced punishment, just to throw it out there? Perhaps an indefinite 1-revert in 24hr restriction on all post-1932 politics articles? Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no punishment. See WP:NOTPUNISHMENT. I'm concerned that your unblock statement contains misleading comments - such as that I "suggested a ban of "Americans" from political articles" - ignoring the context that it was merely in a user page talk comment, and more importantly the justification for that ban, was was that they can't spell. If it wasn't blatantly obvious that was a humorous edit comment, the very first edit I made at ANI made that clear, long before you joined the discussion. Nfitz (talk) 00:59, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz, you are the last editor I need Wikilinking me. I see you also falsely accused Donald Trump (yet another BLP violation) of suggesting that "black people" not be allowed to serve in the military.[9] You violated BLP right on the talk page of an administrator, and had no action taken against you. You called a living person a "piece of shit" multiple times, and had no action taken against you. You called him a misogynist. A bigot. No action taken. In fact, Drmies actually acknowledged your BLP violations[10], and yet still, no action was taken against you. In contrast, I was indefinitely blocked (with no warning) for removing unsourced material falsely sourced to a Politico op-ed and saying that the writer hates Trump. The other parties in the edit war repeatedly restoring the contested material without talk page consensus (TheValeyard and Volunteer Marek) received ZERO sanctions. If Jimbo could take a look at this and say, "Yep, this is pretty much how I want things to go here," then so be it. Somehow though, I think he would be appalled at these facts. Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You pinged me, so I'll put in my two cents: I did indeed criticize Nfitz for their comments, and I hope they take them to heart. If they don't they're likely to get blocked--and, Nfitz, you really have no business commenting here, since that's practically gravedancing. That does not take away from what is going on here; the block, as far as I can tell, is for a pattern of article edits. It's not my block and I am not going to comment on it one way or another, but I wish you the best in appealing it. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Drmies. I noticed Objective3000 is also bravely taking advantage of my block status[11], relishing the opportunity to personally attack me without fear of a response. But yet, somehow I have an agenda and am the source of all the disruption. Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz, who has now been blocked for BLP violations, wrote "Personally, I think that if there is someone on the project, who is so despicable and utterly out-of-step with society, morality, and normality, that they think it's okay to support someone who has the gall to suggest that black or trans folk can't serve in the military - quite frankly, they should be banned from the project - and outed in society as a whole, so that they lose their employment". He obviously isn't talking about Trump. As for Objective2000, saying that this will be a more pleasant place without you is a critical observation, I agree, but nowhere near sanctionable unless it's part of a sanctionable pattern of behavior. Doug Weller talk 09:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see he's been blocked for about 3 days, yes. After referring to a living person as a "piece of shit," "bigot," and "misogynist," several times with no evidence, he received nothing. Apparently something broke the camel's back, but that's not my business. I'm simply observing the standard that Nfitz, someone who despises the president, and a standard for someone like myself, who is perceived (whether true or not), to be a conservative/Republican. That standard is an indefinite block from MastCell, who logged in after a 1.5 month + absence from Wikipedia, made a few quick cosmetic edits to an article, and then indef blocked me about 25 minutes after his return to the project for violating 3RR and saying that a journalist hates Trump.
I'm also not advocating for any kind of sanctions against Objective3000. Just wanted to demonstrate the ongoing incivility and personal attacks ("Hidden Tempo couldn't hide his true self") that are going completely unnoticed by the administrators, while if I so much as chew too loud, I receive negative attention. Hidden Tempo (talk) 14:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is bad. I absolutely abhor political topics, but this takes the cake. While I haven't seen MastCell edit this particular article, he has edited a number of politically oriented articles recently (within the last year). He's an involved admin on this topic, and should not be taking administrative actions on disputes related to that topic, particularly not indefinite blocks. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Kyohyi. That thought had crossed my mind too, but I'm not sure of the policies on that so I didn't mention it. I do see MastCell has in the past made sure that Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)'s sexual harassment allegations made it into his lead[12] along with some other negative material[13], and spearheaded efforts to get Donald Trump's Access Hollywood videotape into his BLP lead during the campaign[14] including "lolwtf?" into the edit summary, in addition to this edit adding negative details to John K. Bush's lead moments before indef'ing me. I'm not seeing any edits that could be perceived as negative information for Democrats and/or positive information for Republicans, but I of course could be missing them and haven't done an extremely thorough check through MastCell's user contribs as of yet. However I am definitely concerned about this given that "partisanship" was given as a reason for my indef block. For right now, I am going to have faith in the system that an indefinite block is not warranted here and it will soon be lifted upon further investigation of the allegations in question. I really hope that the removal of material on a BLP sourced to a Poltico op-ed that doesn't support the aforementioned material is looked at holistically, despite my error in engaging in an edit war with two other editors to remove it. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:11, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I've only just seen this. Some of the first diffs I read were on the Stephen Miller article, where on 2 August you inserted a section that other editors believed to be biased/POV, and then the next day when it was re-written not to your taste, you hacked the section to bits saying that the new version was "NPOV"! If you look at your mainspace contributions, most are of this type - reverts over and over again, with edit summaries of "POV", "UNDUE", etc. Some of them are OK - removing unsourced or badly sourced material is always thus; but it's not the edit-warring that concerns me, but the fact that in many cases what appears to be perfectly acceptable material is reverted away purely because you don't like it. However, I'm not totally wedded to the indefinite block, if anyone else would like to offer an alternative option (which would almost certainly be a restriction, possibly 0RR on post-1932 US politics?) Struck, haven seen MastCell's evidence below. Black Kite (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Black Kite - thanks for the reply, and no worries. I see I'm far from the only open unblock request. I am again requesting diffs of material that I am reverting because I "don't like it." I do acknowledge that I have reverted material for POV and UNDUE reasons, but have always tried to encourage discussion on the talk page, as a big supporter of WP:BRD. In the cases that I reverted a second time, I remember only doing this on pages with no 1RR policy, and am under the impression that contested material must not be reinstated without discussion/consensus on the talk page (on DS pages, which Stephen Miller (political advisor)'s is not). My two edits on 8/2/17 that you referenced[15][16] and subsequent double reversions by another editor[17][18] occurred shortly after the press conference, and better sourcing was not yet available (and yes, I should have waited until it was). This is the material that the other editor put it in its place[19], which I reverted as POV and borderline BLP-violating, and the editor received no support for his version and no trace of it is in the current material. Please also note that there was extensive talk page discussion of this material[20], as evidence of my efforts to come to a collaborative consensus, although unfortunately it degenerated into endless squabbling of personal attacks, despite my repeated requests to keep edits focused on the material rather than specific editors. Of course two wrongs don't make a right, but without diffs I have no way of seeing the edits you're referring in which I am reverting perfectly acceptable material. For what it's worth, I would gladly accept an unblock with a 0RR on post-1932 politics restriction, as obviously it would be a massive improvement on an indef block. Thanks again for the comment. Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amicus brief

I happen to enjoy editing the minefield that is current US politics, and have come to interact with Hidden Tempo as well as many "regulars" in this subject area. I do not see a pattern of bad behaviour from this specific editor, which would justify an indef block, not by a mile. The incident that triggered the block stems from different interpretations of the sourcing and BLP policies, and HT's rationale for his stance sounds totally appropriate, although the edit-warring must of course be frowned upon. But I've seen numerous cases where BLPVIO trumps EW -- again, that would be a matter of individual judgment, warranting at best an admonition cum trout, at worst a short block for occasional edit-warring. I note that HT makes frequent use of talk page discussions and guidance boards, and exhibits no battleground mentality. For all those reasons, I recommend to rescind the block. — JFG talk 15:54, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I also can't see the rationale for the indef block. Would be good for User:MastCell to provide more info to the process here. I see several other editors share these concerns. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you both very much for your support. I am in no way claiming that I have not made mistakes, but an indefinite block in this situation I view as a massive over-sanctioning under the circumstances. Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've been keeping a close eye on these discussions, and regardless of whether my personal views mesh with yours or not this indef block does seem draconian - given that punishments aren't doled out on Wikipedia (every measure is preventative) and that you seem willing to work with the community on their concerns. User:MastCell does mention sockpuppetry (a pretty big accusation) so there could be more here than we can see, but MastCell can provide whatever public sock investigations there are, if any. Garchy (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hidden Tempo/Archive. Basically, Hidden Tempo was topic-banned from American politics under the relevant ArbCom sanctions ([21], appeal declined). He then used a sockpuppet to evade the topic ban, and got caught. He was indefinitely blocked at the time, as is our custom in such cases where people act deceptively. Ultimately he talked an admin into giving him another chance, and he was unblocked with a 6-month topic ban from American politics, which, it appears, expired in early July. All of this is on-wiki and available to anyone with a bit of diligence; no off-wiki information went into my decision-making.

Looking at the history here, Hidden Tempo has triggered multiple blocks and even a topic ban because of his disruptive and tendentious editing in the topic area of American politics. There is also evidence that he attempted to evade these sanctions using a sockpuppet. His block log shows that he's very good at acting contrite when caught, and in talking people into giving him a 2nd/3rd/4th/nth chance, but it also shows that the behaviors in question are quickly repeated whenever leniency is given.

I've been doing this for awhile, and to me, this is a pretty cut-and-dried case of someone waving a huge red flag saying "I'm not suited for this project; I have no respect for its policies or principles; and I have no interest in this project beyond its potential as an ideological platform". I respect the judgement of Black Kite, and if he or another admin wants to work out a plan to lift the indefinite block then I won't stand in the way. But I am mildly bemused at the arguments here; after all, Hidden Tempo has fooled us more than once, and you know how the saying goes. MastCell Talk 19:14, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for providing that detailed info, User:MastCell - I figured there was more to the story (more than just topic bans, that is) and you've confirmed that for me. My concerns with indef blocking tend to do with the inevitable socking to get around such bans. Not that everyone should be given multiple chances (as in the case here), but sometimes it can easier to keep an eye on an editor with a known history than it is to go through and correlate all the socks :) Garchy (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Garchy - please review my unblock request. I admitted to my ban evasion with a sockpuppet in the request, and admitted to the sockpuppetry when I was reported to SPI when I was found out. I made a handful of edits to two talk pages[22]. MastCell provided no new information, here. Doug Weller blocked me and extended my ban by 1 month - I have done my time for the sockpuppetry. So I have been sanctioned twice, and as I pointed above, the proverbial straw for the TBAN was for mentioning the allegations against Chelsea Clinton, which I practically copy-pasted from the headline of a RS. Unless you're counting the above incident where I was very briefly blocked for referring to Clinton's 11% trustworthiness polling as a "feeble" number (which I don't think any other admin would have endorsed), that is two sanctions. I really don't know why I'm being portrayed as some weaselly troll who has been given "3rd/4th/nth chances" and needs to be pulverized with an indef to prevent further damage to the project, but I have made numerous positive contributions to the encyclopedia. I have contributed to film (even created the Tony Vinciquerra article and sports with no problems.
Nobody's "fooling" anybody. How often do people with "no respect for [WP] policies or principles" strive to reach consensus on talk pages? How many of them take content disputes to the NPOV noticeboard? The BLP noticeboard? How many Wikipedians with "no respect" repeatedly ask editors who are personally attacking other contributors to direct their edits on the content, rather than the individual, as per the diagram on my user page? How many of these disrespectful editors politely ask administrators for page protection to prevent vandalism[23]? What about self-reverting and apologizing, after another user (Neutrality) pointed out that I mistakenly violated 1RR[24], and subsequently thanked for our collaboration and courtesy by an administrator during the discussion[25]? MastCell - you stated that "the behaviors in question are quickly repeated whenever leniency is given." I have not been soapboxing, in fact I have encouraged other users to move irrelevant discussions to my talk page. I have not violated BLP even once. I have not created, nor used any sockpuppet account since the unblock. I have not repeated any behaviors in question, and I have already stated that my single 3RR violation in my editing history was a mistake, and would not reoccur. I am in no way saying I am a saint and should have an RfA opened in my name - but just another problem editor who needs to be crushed due to wanton disrespect for WP:PAG and WP:3RR? I do not see any justification for this sanction. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Hidden Tempo, I hate to break it to you, but I'm not an admin so I can't review your block - if I could I would most likely excuse myself anyway to allow a completely uninvolved admin to comment (I'm nearly uninvolved, but there are enough admins out there with no notions who can review this). Good luck! Garchy (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Garchy. I realize that, I just meant "review" my request, as in take a look and see that I explicitly reference my sockpuppetry offense 6 months ago. I don't want to be seen as not being transparent, and hiding information. I have great confidence that even with a few blemishes in my history, an indefinite block is way out of proportion for what is tantamount to a 3RR violation. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JFG. The idea that Hidden Tempo's editing is WP:TENDENTIOUS, hyper-partisan, and agenda-driven is patently absurd. Hidden Tempo's editing appears to be motivated by a desire to remedy that kind of editing. The diff provided as evidence of their supposed tendentiousness illustrates this perfectly: [26] In this edit, they removed a claim, stated as fact and sourced from -yet not found in- an opinion piece. If anything, they should be thanked for their commitment to upholding WP:NPOV, and perhaps warned against edit warring in the future. An indefinite ban? Ridiculous. Cjhard (talk) 05:02, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Cjhard. Exactly what I was trying to communicate - a statement of fact cannot be made in WikiVoice from an opinion piece. Also, could an admin (Swarm or Black_Kite perhaps?) help dissuade Morty C-137 from edit-warring to get false sockpuppet claims and other accusations on my userpage?[27][28] He also has posted these same false claims on his own user page without evidence, and I believe that's also a personal attack. We had some content disputes before my block, and it appears he is now acting out. Thanks. EDIT 8/10/17: Please disregard the bit about the user page enemies list. Morty has had his user page deleted as a result of an AN/I filing. He has also not attempted to reinstate the material on my page so it should be okay now. Hidden Tempo (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MastCell, just checking in. Am I still being considered for the unblock, or am I meant to submit a formal ticket request to have an uninvolved administrator review my block? I read the appeal guide but it was a little unclear as to whether I'm supposed to wait for the result of the template first, or if I can also submit a ticket request for the uninvolved admin review also. Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. When you place an unblock request using the {{unblock}} template, you're automatically added to Category:Requests for unblock. You should be able to see your username there. The process is that other uninvolved admins patrol that category, and one of them will respond to your request. (In practice, we have a declining number of admins and, in particular, a declining number willing to take on these sorts of situations, which is probably why you haven't heard much yet). I've said my piece, and it's not my place to review your unblock request - the intent is for another set of fresh eyes to review it. You can also use WP:UTRS - either in parallel or in series - but I don't know much about that system. MastCell Talk 17:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shih - I hope you don't mind my pinging you, but I see you handle a good amount of administrative actions and thought you may be able to help (feel free to direct me to another admin if appropriate). It appears my blocking admin has gone inactive for a few days now and isn't responding to my request for clarification. Could you please see the above question? I'm wondering if there is something else I could be doing right now in regards to the unblock request, or perhaps there is an ongoing discussion on an admin board concerning my case? I am seeking a review by an uninvolved (not political-article involved, specifically) administrator. Apologies if you're busy, I understand the back and forth above is kind of a journey. Thank you in advance for your assistance. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Comment: Based on what I have read so far, I cannot say I disagree with the current decision. With that being said, I may review the request in the coming days if I have the time and no one else volunteers. In the meanwhile, if you can submit a editing proposal for the next 6 months, it will be immensely helpful. The reason being that in order for your indefinite block to be lifted conditionally, a stricter version of the previous topic ban would most likely be reinstated indefinitely, with the option to appeal after 6 months. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 16:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Integrity
I'm taking my own advice and thanking you for your commitment to upholding Wikipedia's policy that encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view in an area where that can be particularly difficult. I'd also like to thank you for your extraordinary patience and civility given the circumstances you've found yourself in. I sincerely hope you'll be able to contribute to the project soon. Cjhard (talk) 05:14, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS unblock request (cancelled)

UTRS Unblock Request Canceled
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #18968 was submitted on Aug 12, 2017 04:10:43. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 04:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just Chilling - thank you for your reply through UTRS. Just to clarify, am I meant to post another unblock template similar to above, and copy-paste the request I made through the system onto my talk page? As I already have an unblock request template active, I don't want to be seen as attempting to game the system or be disruptive. Although it's been about 5 days since I was indef blocked with no review so I'm seeking other avenues. Thanks. Hidden Tempo (talk) 14:54, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fair question. Your options are either to simply let your existing appeal run or to abort your appeal by commenting out the curly brackets and submitting a fresh appeal on the lines of your UTRS appeal. For clarification, UTRS appeals are only considered either if they contain relevant private information unsuitable for a talk page or if talk page access has been revoked. Neither situation currently is the case. A final point; the fact that an appeal has not had a reply does not mean it has not been considered. All appeals are reviewed promptly by several admins. The lack of a comment simply means that, up to that point, no admin has come to a definitive conclusion. HTH. Just Chilling (talk) 01:52, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Not sure if lack of consensus thus far is a good thing or bad thing for my prospects, but if any reviewing admin sees this and is on the fence, please feel free to ask me any questions you may have or request any relevant diffs of my statements above. I have written an appeal that addresses each blocking rationale somewhat briefly, in particular the initial application of the block that took about 10 minutes or less of deliberation with no warning. I will give my request a bit more time, and if denied, will supply the re-written appeal. Thanks again for the help Just Chilling. Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revised/fresh unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I was given five primary reasons for my indefinite block, and would like to attempt to briefly address all of them. My goal here is not to debate or wikilawyer my way out of a sanction – rather to show why the sanction is massively disproportionate, and to assure the reviewing admin(s) that I am able to edit the encyclopedia productively and without need for any future sanction. Apologies for the length, but I feel many nuances were missed in my first unblock request, which is emphasized by the continuing lack of consensus regarding my fate.

  • Disruptive editing. My goal is always to find common ground with other editors to help build the encyclopedia[29]. Many discussions have been robust and even heated at times, but I hold WP:V in high regard and strive to stay true to source material. I have brought content disputes to the WP:BLP noticeboard[30], the NPOV noticeboard[31], the OR noticeboard[32][33], and have engaged in countless talk page discussions regarding content. I have collaboratively worked with editors on content disputes to find common ground when we may initially disagree (such as Neutrality and MelanieN).[34][35] My editing is collaborative in nature, not disruptive.
  • Tendentious editing. Again, my edits are always geared toward NPOV language. When editors disagree, I engage in conversation on the talk page. I have only violated 3RR once, and when I accidentally violated 1RR on Sean Spicer, I self-reverted immediately[36] after it was pointed out to me by Neutrality[37]. I do not accuse others of vandalism, and after questioning the validity of "Isthmus" as a RS on James O'Keefe, I took it to the RS noticeboard[38], and dropped the WP:STICK after consensus stacked up against my view. While it's true that I have strenuously argued my case for material numerous times, I concede when the consensus is not in my favor. I lack all of the defining features of a tendentious editor.
  • Agenda-driven editing. My only "agenda" is to improve the encyclopedia. While of course I have my own person opinions (as all editors of political articles do), I consistently make an effort to leave them at the door when I log in to WP. I work very hard to maintain neutrality of my edits regardless of my own personal opinions, and of course welcome constructive criticism of my edits.
  • Edit-warring. I admit that I engaged in an edit war with two to three editors at Stephen Miller, and I was wrong for doing that. I should have taken a break, and allowed my posting on the OR noticeboard to come to a consensus. While it does not excuse my violation of 3RR, I did so because I believed that the contentious, poorly-sourced material that was being repeatedly reinstated without consensus violated WP:BLP, and therefore must be removed immediately (as BLPVIO’s do not count against 3RR). The source was an opinion article, which did not contain any material about an "attack on Americans" or a "deficit of nationalism," material which was eventually removed from the article. However, I understand that this is not an excuse to edit war. If unblocked, I will not engage in an edit war again (even if I believe the material is a BLPVIO).
  • Numerous sanctions for prior behavior. This one is false. I did receive a topic ban for soapboxing and apparently violating BLP[39], which I probably deserved as Bishonen did give me warnings beforehand . Since then, I have not been soapboxing and have repeatedly implored other editors to address concerns with my editing or tangential criticism of my edits as a whole to my talk page, rather than disrupt content discussions with side-debates. I have not violated BLP even once since my TBAN. The other sanction to which MastCell is referring is a series of blocks all related to my single incident of sockpuppetry in February. While I will not try to explain or excuse that incident, it was my one and only violation and my socking days are over. Per WP:APPEAL, "Once a block is over, it's over," and since this is my sole SP infraction (and always will be), this sanction should not be factored into this block (although I have seen at least two editors reference this sanction as if it should somehow alter a 3RR block). But I have never been sanctioned for disruptive/tendentious/agenda-driven editing, or edit-warring. This is my first sanction for the above infractions, for which I was given an indefinite block without warning.
  • On a final note, I included the below material in the UTRS request as I did not want to publicly air an admin's dirty laundry and be viewed as disruptive/being uncivil toward an admin, but it appears that system is not appropriate for my type of block, so please expand the section below this request to view the relevant information. Thank you. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declined per AN discussion closure. Please note that you have been given the Standard offer of six months with no socking or editing. If there are any questions please ping me or send me an email. Primefac (talk) 13:48, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Requested evaluation of the suitability and impartiality of blocking admin
I am not making a formal accusation of impropriety against my blocking editor, MastCell. However, I ask that MC’s own editing history is taken into account while reviewing my block. MC is quite active in the AP2 arena, contributing heavily to abortion-related articles, John K. Bush, Donald Trump, Bill O’Reilly[40], Murder of Seth Rich, American Health Care Act of 2017 (inserting his opinions and material unfavorable to Republicans into the article with sensational language[41]), conservative media outlets such as Daily Caller and Washington Examiner, and other highly charged political articles. All of MC’s BLP edits are made to include material that reflect unfavorably upon the subjects, and echo the views and perspectives of Democrats and liberal organizations – never that of Republicans and conservative outlets. I have provided examples here, but MC’s editing history is filled with similar partisan, agenda-driven edits. For this reason, I feel it is inappropriate for this very AP2-active admin with a clear editing pattern to have issued the indefinite block, especially while using words like “agenda” and “partisan” in his rationale.

Additionally, I find it highly irregular that MastCell's last edit was on 21 June 2017, when he commented on Murder of Seth Rich (to complain and opine that the controversy around the murder is “distressing” to the victim’s family and isn’t compliant with “basic human decency”[42]) , and he remained inactive on WP until 7 Aug 2017 (almost 7 weeks). Upon his sudden return to Wikipedia, he made a few quick abortion/gay-rights related edits to John K. Bush's BLP, as well as content about Bush engaging in "right-wing conspiracy theories."[43] Thirty three minutes after his return to WP, MastCell arrived at AN/I and promptly indef blocked me. Including the time it takes to type up his rationale on AN/I, that leaves maybe about 10 minutes to review my three years of editing history (as well as that of Nfitz), come to the conclusions listed above, and decide I am unfit to edit Wikipedia. MC then gives a very milquetoast, gentle warning to Nfitz not to violate BLP[44] (by repeatedly calling Donald Trump a "piece of shit," "misogynist," and a "bigot" with zero diffs). Note that these violations got Nfitz indef'd after another admin saw what he had been doing. This is information relevant to MastCell, not Nfitz - that editor's outcome has no relevance to my sanction.

After issuing my indef block and Nfitz's "warning", MC then went on his way to add some material in defense of abortion to Abortion and mental health (making it a statement of fact that abortions are fine for mental health[45][46], deleting research showing abortion can have negative mental health effects[47], and including alternative explanations for negative effects from abortions[48]. And this is just one article. Taken holistically, MC’s editing history paints a clear picture, and I am unsettled by this sequence of events. I welcome a full, impartial review of my unblock request by a neutral, non-political administrator. I apologize for the walls of text, but I feel there were many nuances that were overlooked in my case. I’d like to again express my appreciation for the rally of support that I’ve received in protest of this sanction, and believe I may be the first editor to actually receive a Barnstar during his/her block. Pinging Dweller and Fram, as this matter may require the attention of a Bureaucrat, and I am not entitled to lodge a complaint of an admin while blocked. Thank you for reading. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dweller, thanks for stopping by. Really I don't know what the appropriate course of action is in this case. My understanding is that part of what bureaucrats do here is provide oversight of administrators. I think when you have an admin with the demonstrated editing history, returning from a WP vacation to suddenly visit an hours-old AN/I report to indef block one editor (after virtually no deliberation, and issue no sanctions to another who does not understand BLP), that is a situation that needs some sort of oversight. If not, then I apologize for the ping and I will let this unblock request play out by itself. Hidden Tempo (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The role of bureaucrats is very limited and is laid out at WP:BUREAUCRAT. You want WP:Arbcom or WP:ANI for complaints about administrators. Alternatively, if it's a privacy dispute, you might want WP:OMBUDSMEN. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's right you participate in some politics articles as an editor consistently supporting the liberal or Democratic position, then other political articles as an administrator handing out bans and topic bans. I don't know whether that's allowed but it shouldn't be. D.Creish (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, D. Creish. That was the issue that I was trying to make clear. I combed through MastCell's editing history and all of his edits that I found were in the exact same vein as above, following the same theme of supporting traditionally liberal schools of thought, and squelching conservative perspectives. This is a separate issue from my unblock request - those reasons are outlined in the above section. This section delves into why I should never have been indef blocked in the first place (at least not for a first offense of 3RR, as several other editors have already pointed out). There's no problem with having opinions on WP, so long as the material is NPOV-compliant, but it becomes a problem when that material is being disseminated by an admin who then goes on to indef block editors (almost immediately after his return to the project) for the very same behavior that the aforementioned admin is exhibiting.

MastCell - if you have any diffs of you adding/subtracting material that could be deemed favorable to Republicans/conservatives and/or unfavorable to Democrats/liberals, please feel free to post them here. I honestly couldn't find any in your user contribs, but if it is more balanced and neutral than I've shown here, I will be glad to apologize for misrepresenting your AP2 editing history. But when you referred to the Access Hollywood "October Surprise" tape as "unprecedented in modern american political history,"[49] and added your own commentary in your edit summary ("lolwtf?"), indef blocked a user[50] within two hours after the user made an edit clearly unfavorable to the practice of abortion[51], and have contributed very, very heavily to abortion-related articles (invariably adding pro-choice material to each article), I think you can understand why editors may interpret this pattern as agenda-driven editing, and why there have been protests from the WP community on this page against your issuing AP2-related sanctions. Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continued discussion of unblock request

Extended discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi again Alex Shih, only pinging you since you mentioned that you may review my unblock request if you have time. I don't know if you noticed or not but I made a new unblock request that specifically addressed each reason for the indef block and laid out either why each is either untrue and/or will not (re)occur. I also included the above section illustrating why the blocking editor should not be issuing AP2-related sanctions in the first place, as I'm not sure how familiar WP administrators are with MastCell's editing patterns. MastCell protested the collection of diffs showing his history and intense interest in adding pro-choice literature and unfavorable material to conservative/Republican BLPs (diffs in collapsed section above), and I gave him the opportunity to clear up the alleged misunderstanding that he called "dishonest." That was a week ago, and he provided nothing.

I'm still really unclear how an editor such as myself with this kind of attitude[52] that has been described as "collaborative and courteous" by two administrators[53][54] just weeks before an indef block could be described as "tendentious"/"hyper-partisan"/"agenda-driven." I don't have access to the admin discussion board of course, but I'm having a very hard time imagining admins looking at these diffs and saying "Oh yes, this is an editor who can't possibly be trusted to edit film and sports articles. And looking at these diffs, we must indefinitely block this editor to prevent him from disrupting AP2 articles with his 'collaborative' and 'courteous' discussion." Of course a sense of camaraderie among admins is to be expected, and I understand that admins will be reluctant to disagree with sanctions placed by other admins, but I think in this case the above diffs really don't back any of the five indef reasons. The only one with merit is my sole 3RR violation (that I've agreed not to repeat), which I believe a 72-hr block is standard, a time frame which has long passed. A neutral, objective review would be appreciated. Thanks.

Hidden Tempo (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's the context: you were blocked for WP:BLP violations in service of your political agenda in December 2016, but let off with a promise to behave. You didn't; you were then topic-banned from American politics because of your "persistent tendentious editing, soapboxing, and WP:BLP violations". You appealed the topic ban, and it was upheld by a consensus of uninvolved admins ([55]). You then used sockpuppets to evade your topic ban, and got caught, resulting in an indefinite block. (Note that I played no role in any of these episodes, although you're free to focus your unblock request on my supposed misdeeds if you really think that helps your case). You were let off, once again, with a promise of good behavior—a promise which you once again broke, with combative posts and edit-warring.

    Since you bring up the issue of "standard" sanctions, in making your case for a 72-hour block, let's talk about them. The standard sanction for someone who's repeatedly proven to be a tendentious editor, and who has deceptively used sockpuppets to evade their sanctions, is an indefinite block. When you were instead let off with time served, it should have been abundantly clear that you were on your last-last chance to shape up and edit responsibly. In my view, for someone who's been given an unusual degree of leeway and repeatedly abused it, the standard sanction is an indefinite block, not 72 hours.

    I think you've proven remarkably adept at presenting a contrite facade when you get caught, and someone may buy it, again, and let you off with a promise to behave, again. But you haven't shown any respect for this site's policies or behavioral expectations, except for when you get caught violating them. MastCell Talk 18:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(apologies for wall of text, but this is important and many false accusations were made)

That's not "context." That's a series of half-truths used to defend an indefensible sanction, which has resulted in something of an outcry of protest against your actions. I was blocked for an alleged BLP violation (referring to an 11% polling number as "feeble"), and yes, I was t-banned for alleged violations that have not taken place since, except in your eyes. And as I've shown above, your wealth of AP2 edits are exclusively in favor of liberal/Democratic positions and exclusively to the detriment of conservative/Republican positions - that is your frame of reference, and you do not dispute it. Your inflammatory edit summaries only cement your purpose in the AP2 arena. That's the context of your "political agenda/tendentious" accusation.

In regards to your "sockpuppets" claim, I did in fact make a handful of edits with one sockpuppet on a talk page before I was aware of the seriousness of the infraction, and yes, was blocked and unblocked as I agreed never to violate the policy again (which I didn't). Per WP:APPEAL, "Once a block is over, it's over." Using an unrelated past violation of WP policy to bolster your case for a sanction 6 months later is tremendously inappropriate, and falls well outside of WP:ADMINACCT restrictions. I was not "let off" with a promise of "good behavior." I was unblocked as I no longer posed a sockpuppeting threat to the project - per WP:BLOCK, "blocks should not be punitive." And yes, I do believe that highly agenda-driven AP2 administrators (see diffs above) should not be handing out AP2 sanctions for his/her perceived agenda of others, and the section above does strongly support my case that you made a mistake (a sentiment which has already been echoed by several other editors). Again, tendentious editors are not praised for their "collaboration" and "courtesy" by two separate administrators. They just aren't. Not sure why you keep using that word, but it doesn't apply to editors who get praised for their collaboration by multiple administrators. You've done absolutely nothing to show that I am unable to edit AP2 articles collaboratively, much less any other topic. I still would have appealed a topic ban, but an indefinite block is to be issued when the editor is unable to edit any part of WP, which my contribs prove is clearly not the case.

What you've now shown is that you're less concerned with blocking policy, and much more concerned with being "right," rather than getting it right. You use aggressive, emotionally-charged language like "you got caught," "you are good at acting contrite," you need to "shape up" and "edit responsibly," "you promised to behave," rather than actually support your opinions with diffs (another ADMINACCT breach). Using an abundance of diffs, I've proven that I exhibit zero qualities outlined in WP:TEND (I examined the definition point by point and refuted them all), while you have shown that you have little regard for ADMINACCT due to your a) using sanctions punitively, b) failing to give me a suitable warning (while simultaneously gently warning another editor for multiple, repeated, reprehensible BLP violations, until other admins came and properly issued the block) and c) allowing your own personal political beliefs to guide your judgment in issuing sanctions. That's the true context of this sanction, and I think reviewing admins should absolutely look at your history. Your contribs speak for themselves, so admins don't even need to rely on my diffs. They can readily observe the same pattern that I and others have found for themselves.

Also notable is that you still haven't addressed the bizarre sequence of events leading up to my block: you take a two-month vacation, return to Wikipedia, make a few damaging edits to John K. Bush's BLP, and then indef block me all within about a half hour. You went from John K. Bush to AN/I, scanned the entire board, picked out the report filed against Nfitz, extracted my name mixed in with the abundant detritus that had accumulated, skimmed my contribs from the past 6 months, and indefinitely blocked a 3-year editor within a space of about ten minutes. You then casually continue on your way to go make some favorable abortion edits and call it a day. The fact that you've completely failed to explain this incredibly concerning and irregular timeline only lends credence to the need for scrutiny of the blocking editor. I see that since our last interaction, your most significant edits have been predictable and following the pattern that I've outlined: adding some pro-choice material, including an edit summary that not-so-subtly reveals your stance on abortion [56][57], a questionable application of the "conservative" label to a group that disagrees with the generally liberal view that gay couples should be permitted to adopt[58], and of course some material siding with Antifa/counter-protestors and linking neo-Nazis to Donald Trump over there at Unite the Right rally[59][60][61]. This ongoing trend is significant, and very relevant to your application of AP2 sanctions.

Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside to Dweller if he is watching this page, in my search for a neutral admin to review my request, I have personally come across at least one admin with multiple BLP violation on his/her user page, and another admin who is using a sockpuppet without the notifying template. This is why I pinged a bureaucrat. Frankly I'm worried that one of these admins who is flaunting policy will come and simply block my talk page access because I "know too much" or will simply drop off a few dismissive links to WP:ROUGEADMIN and WP:CABAL, have a few snickers over the whole thing, and then leave me to rot along with the other indef blocked editors who've had their requests open for months or even years. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hidden Tempo: Sorry, I will have to decline to review based on the editing behaviour that I am seeing here. FT2, a former arbitrator, commented on Nfitz's unblock request, and he will probably be able to help you better. Alex ShihTalk 22:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What editing behavior are you referring to? MastCell provided no diffs...did you review the diffs I provided of administrators praising my collaborative editing and courtesy? Do you see absolutely no problems with MastCell's editing patterns, and feel he is qualified to hand out AP2 related sanctions? Anyway, thanks for the review regardless. Hopefully FT2 will review the unblock request, as well as the supplementary section regarding MastCell's problematic contributions. To FT2 and any other reviewing admins: feel free to ask any questions about anything that seems unclear, or for any additional diffs disproving the four main reasons that I can't be trusted to edit film-related articles (the fifth reason, a single 3RR violation, I already admitted to). Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If this is a request to take a look, then sure.

What the wall of text seems to say (on a quick skim, and without assuming motives or actions): Hidden Tempo has a past record of problematic editing. Probably at least part in good faith, but enough to get a Arbcom topic ban notice from Bishonen, a long-standing admin, followed by a block, evasion of the block with socks, and was then contrite and allowed to edit again. That was mostly from what I can tell, last year or early this year (the socks being on SPI around Feb+March). That's quite a time ago in wiki terms. MastCell and some others feel the behavior hasn't stopped, they believe that Hidden Tempo is a tendentious editor who is good at convincing people to grant more chances. Hidden Tempo seems to feel that MastCell and perhaps others shouldn't be taking an admin role in a subject where they have a strong editing history (even if not on that exact article), and are judging him/her unfairly. So we've come to a point where one bunch of people are pretty sure Hidden Tempo is unable to be helped and verging on a full ban, while Hidden Tempo is either acting cleverly or else if I assume good faith, is trying to solve a problem of wiki-bureaucracy that seems to not be hearing what he's saying and is frustrated but trying to do right.

Both interpretations are plausible; unfortunately both happen quite often.

My gut feel on a quick skim, is that there's a fair-to-good chance Hidden Tempo is trying to do right. I've dropped an email to both him and the blocking admin (to avoid adding lots of words to this wall of text). In it, I describe what I am seeing and what might help to resolve the discussion or make it more productive. Right now this thread has a lot more "heat" than "light", not much focus on the core points of conduct and BLP. The main evidence of poor conduct seems to be a finger pointed at a set of blocks 8 months ago that were evaded 6 months ago plus an unsupported claim of continuing tendentiousness without recent diffs, a single 3RR that's been apologized for, and a disputed removal that may or may not have been aiming to fix a BLP vio and may or may not have been in good faith. Hmm.

Like I said, I've emailed both with a more detailed version of the above (I felt in an experimental mood!) and if asked I'll post it here, but for now - let's cool down, let the user and blocking admin see if there's anything of value in it, and see if they can restart this discussion more successfully. FT2 (Talk | email) 00:07, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've been on this page before, and I'll be quick. I love unblocking editors, but I see a few problems here. First is this lengthy argument that the blocking admin was guilty of foul play because of their politics; that's a real serious charge, and the editor is--unfortunately--goaded by someone saying "look at the current Arb case". Unfortunately that case is completely and utterly different, as I think anyone can see even without arb glasses: . In other words, blaming the blocking admin--well, so far the block hasn't been seriously challenged, and at least some of the charges were admitted, no? Second, given the editor's history (sorry, Hidden Tempo) I think that a restriction of sorts is proper--fortunately they proposed something along those lines themselves. FT2, I urge you to consider a restriction, not just to prevent possible disruption but also to--Hidden Tempo, I'm sorry, this sounds patronizing--protect the editor from himself, like in that Stephen Miller business. And that puts me at my word limit for this talk page. Later, Drmies (talk) 02:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, looking over this page again, I see "Frankly I'm worried that one of these admins who is flaunting policy will come and simply block my talk page access because I "know too much""... Now that remark worries me. That's today? Hidden Tempo, it's admins that will have to unblock you. Accusing them of flaunting policy and having some sort of hit squad is not the way to win them... Drmies (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies - thanks for the comment. No offense taken, when I first entered the AP2 arena last October or so I admit I was woefully unfamiliar with many WP policies that just don't come up that often in other areas. I didn't know that you had to use diffs before mentioning something negative about a BLP, I didn't really know what a BLPVIO was, I didn't know about WP:SOAP, and I'm embarrassed to say that I actually thought having two accounts to edit with was just fine (although I admit that I knew was being shady when I socked in Feb/Mar). After my topic ban, my editing style totally changed - no soapboxing, diffs everywhere, urging side discussions to take place at my talk page rather than articles, etc. And as I've stated twice now, I've had two administrators praise me for engaging in "collaborative" discussion and my "courtesy." This is why I'm so perplexed by this diff-less block by MastCell. It just doesn't make any sense. The 3RR is the only one that has any real validity, which I already confessed to and said I would not repeat.

In regards to the admins "flaunting policy," I could email you their names if you'd like with diffs, but it's a real concern. I know you've been an admin for a very long time and even serve on Oversight, but please put yourself in my shoes for a minute: if you're trying to get unblocked, and two very prominent admins who issue and remove sanctions regularly are currently violating WP policies, would you want them meandering over to your talk page to weigh in? The two admins in question share the editing patterns of MastCell (although not nearly as pervasive and obvious), so I have no hope of either of them honoring my unblock request. I'm merely making the point that admins are not always right, and blocked editors are not always wrong. I practically begged every admin that came to this page (and even pinged a b'crat to take a look at MastCell's contribs) and none of them bothered to even skim them or click the diffs in the section above. Or if they did, they came to the conclusion that "Yep, looks good. That's what we expect from AP2-sanctioning admins," but just didn't say anything about it. I can't possibly be the only editor who finds it strange that all the regular editors here agree with me, and all the admins agree with the blocking admin. I'm honest to a fault - I could fall at my knees and shower MastCell and other admins with doting praise and self-flagellate myself repeatedly for violating 3RR, but that's not who I am and I don't really know if that would do more for my chances. I strongly believe that this block should never have happened, and I back that up with an avalanche of diffs. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)
@Drmies - I'm not planning to block or unblock. I suspect things will work out okay for all sides in this case (it feels that way!) and I don't know the full facts either. I'm fine with commenting as I've been pinged, if it helps to resolve the issue.
As to the other comment, it's not important, and probably just situational venting. People say daft things when under stress, especially when the stress comes from an arcane system and from a level of miscommunication by both parties that feels frustratingly like there's no way to sort a problem out. (Wiki editing can be badly arcane: it's worth editing as a newcomer every few years to remind oneself how newcomers experience it.) I think we need a slightly thick skin for non-attack comments like that which are much more likely to be venting out stress than actual belief in paranoiac conspiracy theories. We've historically tolerated such comments in the past - "rouge admins" and "cabal" are terms that didn't spring from nowhere.
@Hidden Tempo - check your email if you haven't done so (see above, I emailed both you and MastCell). FT2 (Talk | email) 03:38, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, FT2. I replied to your email. Also in light of your above edit, you may find this edit that I made earlier today slightly amusing, if you have not already seen it. EDIT: In case it wasn't clear, I didn't mean that my edit was literally meant to "amuse," but rather to point out that those two particular essays are almost always cited when any wrongdoing is alleged against a WP admin. I find that dismissive and incredibly unfair. If no reviewing admin is willing to take MastCell's editing history into account during the review, I'm willing to remain silent about the issues in question and focus solely on the 5 reasons given for the indefinite block (with no diffs). Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
John, I noticed that you are fairly active in AN/I and have demonstrated that you value balance and impartiality while discussing sanctions. If you have a moment sometime, perhaps you would kindly do me the favor of quickly skimming the diffs in my unblock request and collapsed section regarding MastCell's history? I would welcome your opinion regarding highly AP2-involved admins unilaterally issuing AP2-related indefinite blocks with zero diffs. Thank you for your time in advance, should you choose to offer your insight. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @FT2: Thanks for your email, but barring any significant privacy concerns, I think it would be best to handle this unblock request on-wiki rather than via email. At a rough glance, 75% of this unblock request is dedicated to attacking me. It's as if Hidden Tempo is using Examples of Bad Unblock Requests as a how-to guide. What's missing is any sort of credible introspection about his own actions. It's up to you whether to enable and reward that behavior. MastCell Talk 01:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MastCell, I've noticed that you've said some things a number of times here that aren't quite true, but have some vague resemblance to the truth. You've accused me of using sockpuppetS, promising to "behave", being unblocked for "good behavior", showing "no respect" for WP:PAG, and now you're claiming that I'm "attacking" you. I'm not attacking you. I am following WP:GAB to the letter: "You must explain why it was wrong to block you." Well, as you are a very active AP2 editor with a clear preference for one political perspective, I have shown with an abundance of diffs why it was wrong for you to block me. Per WP:GAB, in my unblock request I have:
  • State your reason for believing your block was incorrect or for requesting reconsideration. - See my unblock request above. Reasons 1-3 were subjective but debunked with diffs, reason 5 is false (also debunked with diffs), and reason 4 was confessed to and I repeatedly stated that 3RR would not be a problem for me, even when the material being removed is BLPVIO material.
  • Address the blocking administrator's concerns about your conduct (the reason given for your block). - See above.
  • Give evidence. - See above, as well as numerous edits I've made since the block was issued. My reasons for the block to be reversed and comments regarding your editing history is backed by a wealth of diffs. This page is littered with diffs from me, in contrast to your lack of diffs. I can only surmise that since you decided to indef block me after about 10 minutes or less of deliberation (in between adding damaging material to John K. Bush's BLP and abortion-favoring material to Abortion and mental health, you simply didn't have time to go through my edit history and collect any evidence before making your decision. It's all but impossible to go through an editor's entire 3-year editing history, sanction log, block log, and issue the block/write your reasoning on AN/I in a span of ten minutes, much less gather diffs.

My entire unblock request is focused on my own behavior, so I really have no idea why you would claim that there is no "introspection" on my part. Nothing in WP:EBUR even remotely resembles my clear, concise, diff-backed, WP:GAB compliant unblock request. Any admin that sees what you just said is free to glance at my UBR and decide for themselves who is telling the truth. When they look at the diffs I've provided (and compare them to the zero that you have provided), the timeline and reasons for my block will crystallize even further. Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I have been on vacation for two weeks; I was surprised to find this talk page discussion still going on when I return. I have just one comment to make, because someone pointed out to me that Hidden Tempo has referred to me at least three times by citing the same pair of diffs, from the same incident, as evidence of "administrators praising my collaborative editing and courtesy". I am one of the administrators he is talking about. I once (July 21) complimented HT and User:Neutrality for collaboratively and politely working out their differences on a particular issue of wording. Neutrality is the other administrator HT cites, commenting on the same discussion. (I'm pinging Neutrality because he may be unaware, as I was unaware, the HT is repeatedly citing him as a kind of character witness.) I wonder, was that the only time HT ever worked collaboratively, or received a compliment? Because it is certainly the only such case he seems to be able to link to. Actually, in that case I praised the collaborative outcome partly because it was so unusual for him. As for the current discussion, I have not researched the circumstances of the block and have no opinion or recommendation on that subject. I am simply commenting here because HT seems to be trying to give the impression that I am some kind of supporter or admirer. That would be an incorrect conclusion. --MelanieN (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MelanieN, and welcome back. To answer your question, your comments were not the only instance that I've received compliments for collaborative editing, however I felt that recent positive comments from two separate administrators are highly relevant when the blocking administrator is making claims that I am "tendentious" and have "no respect" for WP:PAG. The fact that you and Neutrality are not supporters/admirers of mine mean the comments carry even more weight. We disagree over and over on material, and likely share very different personal political views. And yet, we are able to collaborate in a civil, courteous, compromising manner. This is the reason that I pointed to this fact several times - it completely debunks MastCell's primary reasons for the indef. I too am very surprised that this discussion is still taking place. I was expecting that a non-involved admin would take a look at the diffs I provided, be similarly appalled as I was with the sanction, and immediately unblock me with perhaps a trouting for MastCell. Much to my chagrin, that has not yet happened and I find myself still citing diff after diff to illustrate why an indef block was astonishingly inappropriate. Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, MelanieN. I too, want to make clear that I am not a "supporter or admirer" of HT's style of editing. I also want to, very specifically, make clear that I think MastCell's decision was well within his discretion to make the block, and certainly do not agree with the criticism of MastCell. Neutralitytalk 18:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review of block

Request for clarification from MastCell with MastCell's Response
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Note I won't be blocking or unblocking, I'm just reviewing. I hope this will help to sort the matter out, or give an idea how it looks. And I'm sorry that I found fault on both sides which means nobody will like it :)

@MastCell - I'm not interested in enabling, nor in making any formal block decision. I *am* currently seeing real concerns with the block, but that could be down to not knowing everything you know about HT's recent conduct.

Specifically, his conduct across the board just doesn't fit with the description given, and the total lack of recent (or any 2017) diffs showing significant warrior conduct as claimed. Note that warring isn't the same as strong views: many editors state strong views held robustly but aren't warriors. Maybe Hidden Tempo (can I abbreviate to "HT"?) really is a clever tendentious gamer but honestly, that's not my first impression pending actual diffs for reasons below - and I'm usually good at differentiating gamers from users where the issue is communication not tendentiousness.

Summary of what seems to have happened

From the above thread, HT seems to have been has been indeffed and stated to be irredeemably tendentious on the basis of what looks like several months of apparently clean editing after his block ended on 17 March, in which I haven't found evidence of issues, followed by a 5 day period 2 - 6 August 2017 in which I see:

  1. Repeatedly reinstating one specific claimed BLP vio fix (with variations) on this page 8 times. This is what BLP usually requires if a possible violation is reinstated before it's resolved; and
  2. A thread on that article's talk page, arguing over the revert/reinstate conflict, where nobody (especially HT) comes off well;
  3. Generally, a very poor choice of verbal style and snarky attacks, mainly in the related talk page thread I linked, and in the same 5 day period, but also it's a historic pattern that I found in some other posts before and after his block earlier this year. However some other posts showed HT being clear and explaining matters to a good standard as well. It did vary, but the thread above was a very poor example and looked a lot like a gamer might look.
  4. These are backed by a historical track record of topic ban (2016) and evasion (Feb 2017) which he sat out earlier this year when caught. I'm discounting this because it's stale unless the pattern was and is ongoing and clearly in bad faith, and so far nobody's shown links backing that kind of claim, although it's stated to be so in the block notice and the thread that followed.

The problem with the picture presented on HT's user talk page is, a lot of things that should usually have been seen if the block was appropriate, apparently weren't. There is good discussion and response by HT with diffs on several occasions that nobody contested. There's no trace so far of ongoing issues or anything else that isn't stale, or that he's been discussed at noticeboards or his conduct focused on between March and this. (They might exist but if so there's no links to them). He actively edited since May but has had no other blocks, talk page warnings or expressions of concern in that time, not even a single 3RR notice. People exposed as warriors on high profile pages with AC sanctions active, don't usually get that after their first block, especially if they sock-evaded it, because of the high scrutiny they get for years after.

I also came away with genuine concerns about the proportionality of the block unless there's a lot more gone on than I saw. It looks a bit like the often-snarky expression by HT of frustration and worry has been added to his conduct in a specific short-term dispute (with his points not seeming to be considered), and then added on to his old conduct from months back, in the block notice. If so that wouldn't be okay. The reasonable points he raises and where he asks for actual evidence of the claims have also been ignored which could be seen as unfair if they have merit, and they might.

So perhaps this matter is really specifically about a single issue, because the pages I've found don't seem to be saying "hyper-anything tendentious warrior" unless there's a lot more to it or someone has evidence of serious ongoing issues persisting/resuming after he returned in March 2017. So far it's all related to some 8 reverts and a short but uncivil thread discussing them over a 5 day period, which was a single specific issue.

As an uninvolved admin

I feel at present the evidence I could see doesn't support the block. But there may be much more I didn't see. We need to know these things from the blocking admin or others who know the situation:

  1. Is there more to this or other evidence claimed to suggest bad editing, apart from his involvement during 2 - 6 August on Steve Miller's page? (meaning since March 2017 when his block ended)
  2. Has any formal or focused discussion taken place anywhere about the user's conduct any time since 17 March 2017, apart from this thread?
  3. Has the BLP issue he was concerned about ever been calmly looked at (to determine if better solutions exist or if the BLP claim is an obvious bad-faith game), or is it basically "the loudest voice determines Wikipedia's view"?

We need these as diffs or thread links, not vague claims or pointing fingers at old conduct from 2016 and a block evasion more than 5 months ago. That would allow a more fair and considered discussion which isn't dominated by "heat".

If HT is as described in the block notice, I'd expect it to be easy to produce links to recent and clear evidence (preferably June/July 2017 but at least after he resumed editing in March) that shows the problem conduct. That lets other users distinguish an editor with good intentions but some verbal tone issues, who might learn, from a socking troll warrior who won't ever.

Some care might be needed to be sure if the diffs show good faith but snarky editing with some attacks, or bad faith and wilful gaming.

Detailed observations/comments/diffs

  1. The background is disruptive editing which got a serious block and was block evaded. That's not a great start. But the bad editing block was over 8 months ago, and the evasion was dealt with by SPI and reblocks in February - March, about 5 months ago. Judging by the log and this page's history, it seems that HT sat out his blocks in March 2017.

    For example, there have been no blocks since then, until now, for about 5 months. We don't usually base a claim of unsalvageable bad conduct on events 8 months previous and a sock evasion block 5 months before, without a pattern of resumed behavior issues, and no blocks or formal issues since. So this is background but nothing more, until evidence of a current and ongoing problem exists. It's not evidence of any current conduct issue.

  2. The sole issue given for this specific block is apparently a text removal on a political article, that may or may not have been an attempt to remove a BLP breaching item. The diffs are probably some of these reverts: [62][63][64][65][66][67]. But there's no visible discussion at all about the sourcing and sourcing issue itself, and a plausible concern that a 3rd party source appears in its plain text to have mis-characterized or poorly described a primary source and might be causing a BLP vio as a user sees it, is not something I expect to see assumed bad faith about without some threads showing reasoned dialog met with gaming. Unless there is a clear case it's blatantly gamey, or the latest in a series of attempts to force a section of viable info to be removed, then on the face of it, that is actually a sensible BLP observation, made by a user who's kept fairly clean for quite a while now.

    If it's a game, there will be pages that clearly show it. None are linked, nobody's suggesting they exist, and BLP itself says to reinstate a removal if it's put back with the doubt unresolved. It's even one of the very few formal 3RR exceptions. Where is the discussion whether or not the cites and the characterization they give are BLP-compliant and good enough quality? Where is discussion about possibly seeking better cites or higher quality sources or other ways to resolve the disagreement? Where is the tendentious hanging onto implausible rationales? Where is a suggestion that we can use "Source X says Y" and also add other significant interpretations claimed to be missing or not have due weight, or that we look at the range of ways that other good quality sources report the same text/transcript? Any of these would be a good start at collaborative resolution.

    I also don't see links to any effort to follow basic steps for a content disagreement, or to address a user who has a plausible BLP concern, or to explain over and over why it's not a BLP issue and see the other user doing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, or any other link to show people tried and failed on another page. This page shows no cause and no links to good cause elsewhere.

  3. Next I look at his talk page. It gets wiped so I check the history in case he hides negative comments. A user - especially with a past bad record - who edits disruptively or tendentiously almost always racks up some level of concerned posts, warnings or ANI notices.

    This user? None since his March block ended. Nobody has posted an expression of concern to his talk page, or discussed him at any formal noticeboard with a "you are being discussed" post. No formal 3RR warnings at all this year. Nothing. Not what I'd expect if he's been tendentious recently and exhausted patience.

  4. I'd expect signs of recent tendentiousness that couldn't be dealt with by discussion, or short blocking. And by that I don't mean 2016 or a block that's 5 or 8 months old. The user asked and nobody gave him links, so now I'm asking because nobody uninvolved can comment with certainty if the diffs and links showing the claimed conduct are missing and there's no sign of where to see the behavior that merited protecting the project this way. I'd like to see some diffs or thread links showing the claimed clear tendentious gaming, and recent enough to support the conclusions for this block, please.

    By that I mean June/July 2017, at most May - not 2016 or ancient conduct and block history, and not mere differences of perception about sources between good-faith users. Non stale tendentious conduct for an WP:INDEF block should be easy to show, and a block for tendentiousness can't be reviewed without it by the wider community who lack the history.

    In that regard the block is sloppy - the links needed for WP:UNINVOLVED admins to review should be given if it's not clear. Without it, all we have is a user who has kept clean since his last block and on any reading of WP:AGF has at worst been uncivil at times and expressed a concern that should be handled as a good faith concern about BLP, and taken to a talk page to resolve and if needed seek consensus. Asking for good grounds for the block is reasonable here.

  5. As a side, I should say that I don't think the conduct of the user matches that of tendentious "hyper-partisan" edit warriors (as he's been described). The user who one would expect to be angry and hostile, is actually doing a decent job of keeping balance all things considered. he's accepting hints about his tone and how it's perceived. He's asking the same things I would ask - diffs of the claimed conduct and discussion of the issue he has raised, if not already addressed elsewhere. The blocking admin has not provided those diffs or links, making it impossible for uninvolved admins to know if they exist, what they show, or other background. The thread seems to revolve around past bad conduct and it being evidence of further tendentious to raise issues that a blocked user can reasonably raise even if not gaming, and for which they can and should expect a good answer. He's asked for diffs and expressed concerns, he hasn't been given any. I'm not surprised he's not happy, because that's not how we do it.

    Also, while "brown-assing" isn't unknown among gamers, the points I've raised to HT he has replied as someone might who takes them seriously. No evasive words. For example, I mentioned in email that his "sharp" replies and attempted humor can easily come over as uncivil or condescending. Today I find he has updated his comment to address the concern, to clarify his words, and to explain his intent. I didn't ask him to, and gave him to understand that I wasn't going to make any decision on the block myself. Not a big thing, but not how a tendentious user - even a clever one - usually acts.

  6. There's a claim that "75% of this unblock request is dedicated to attacking me"... Mast Cell, you've been around for ages. I think this doesn't need such a reaction. My first impression wasn't that he's just on a personal attack spree, although of course a chunk of his upset relates to you and some posts are strongly worded. But not rabid. He should tone it down and I hope he will. He makes a point that you have a history (he says) of editing the topic area if not this exact page. You've described him in very strong terms as someone who is unsalvageable and fit only for an edit warrior ban, and have indef blocked him. Whatever the reality, I can see why that might make a user fear they aren't going to be fairly heard, whatever the issues might be, and perhaps that's fueling the issue.

    If so, historically it's better to let it cool down. Perhaps you might consider letting an different admin (by which I don't mean me!) handle the block/unblock so that it's very transparent that there is no involvement issue playing a part? That doesn't mean anything's wrong. I've dropped being the admin on a case if the user seemed to genuinely feel concern about a neutral review and a chance that some good-faith editors might also be bothered by it, just to ensure it's totally transparent. So can anyone. It's sometimes best and doesn't show anything wrong. If the block is good, others will see and agree it, and so will consensus. If it helps in your view, you can pass the matter to another uninvolved admin, and then his not-entirely-unreasonable concern about involvement might also evaporate.

  7. This isn't about taking sides. There is plenty of evidence of poor conduct by HT - but it's mainly attacks and tone that produces "heat" not "light", rather than dispute resolution.

    For example, in February HT snarkily attacked the user who reported him to SPI and engaged in personal attacks and "look how you act as well" instead of the actual matter of his ignoring/evading the restriction (under whatever account). The Steve Miller talk page section shows disturbing conduct that is similar to gamers, and I suspect that thread and failure to handle it properly led us here. I strongly suggest that HT figures out a different way to interact or he *will* rapidly hit blocks and long term bans from it if he continues to edit. HT - you are articulate and clear minded. That kind of inflammatory style needs to go now and never be seen again. If there's a dispute like that, seek wider views and WP:DR; don't slog it out or attack people like that again (even if you think it's deserved or obvious bias). Yes it's slower but it's what you need to do.

    The problem with the Steve Miller thread I have linked, is that there isn't actually any clear consensus seeking, by anyone on the BLP issue itself - and BLP is a clear 3RR exemption until a discussion has happened. So we're in the dark right now whether the BLP claim is (a) valid, (b) blatantly a game, or (c) something that could be agreed or disagreed legitimately by different users, requiring consensus.

    HT also has a pattern of "sharp replies" which could be more civil, for example a tone that can come over as condescending, and some conduct diffs that don't all seem to show the inappropriate behavior described. But that second post also shows direct constructive responses rather than flaming/gaming when accused, and his reply to Black Kite is to-the-point and based on diffs, and nobody's put diffs down to show he's mis-describing anything in it. So we don't yet know what uninvolved users might feel about the issue itself.

    What this is about is explaining why I feel uneasy about the block right now, I feel I cannot see the behavior claimed, and I would like the diffs showing recent clear examples of the claimed conduct supporting the block. It will probably also help us all to get past this stage of just writing heated posts to each other.

I feel at this point, we really need these things, to discuss HT in a meaningful way:

  • Recent, non-stale diffs/links clearly showing the stated *ongoing pattern* of behavior since his last block a few months ago, which looks tendentious and seems to show that HT is in reality probably a clever or subtle edit warrior (meaning, not just someone with a strong view or snarky, but actually WP:NOTHERE to write an encyclopedia). An indef block without good cause just doesn't stand up without that, and uninvolved community members will need links to the conduct to discuss any block or appeal. I'm mainly looking for conduct in June/July (or since his March 2017 unblock at worst), but I'll take whatever shows a pattern of recent conduct that is of real concern.
  • Confirmation which posts actually gave rise to this block and whether there has been any related discussion elsewhere, especially any consensus ignored by HT (and any other problem reverts recently)
  • Actual balanced discussion and consensus about the possible BLP concern, or whether ways exist to find a consensus improvement.
  • Whether or not HT's previous conduct since being unblocked on 17 March has been the explicit subject of an admin or noticeboard discussion (or indeed any broad discussion by the community), and either links if so or some comment on it, if not. (He was very active for about 3 months between early May and this incident, the pages are greatly watched, and he was a recently unblocked editor/sock user, so we'd expect any clever or gaming conduct to get much quicker handling)

Then we can see what conduct we're looking at, and maybe reach a consensus on it.

Comment to blocked user and blocking admin

Hidden Tempo - you need to read the detail above, because your verbal tone and style on the thread I've linked near the end *will* get you blocks and perhaps indeed a ban at some time, if you resume editing and handle disputes like that again. It really was not good and even if not indef it was close to the edge of a block. I can see why it wasn't taken seriously and seemed like bad faith gaming. Only the fact that most other conduct in the talk page thread was as poor, and having the spirit of WP:BLP/WP:3RR on your side as you were removing a claimed BLP vio, leave your reverts not breaching about 8RR or something and a sizeable block. Next time those may not help you. Consider that a fair "heads up". I believe you might be able to learn from it and do it differently going forward. We have WP:DR for disputes. Use it and aim for light, not heat. And discuss your own conduct rather than that of others. You do not want to be perceived to be distracting from the issues right now, seriously, and that would be seen as a distraction. You can come back to them afterwards. WP:Unblock perspectives may help.

MastCell - you also need to read it. The block post was sloppy and in a sense, much of the drama that came from it is fueled by that, and something I feel you could have easily reduced by simply providing diffs as normal when you did the block or soon after. Showing the claimed behavior would have let others review it without making assumptions about what HT had done. Especially as the talk page didn't give any information or refer to it anywhere else. Then HT would not have been able to feel your position was unfounded and accuse you in the way he did. You also did no favors by refusing/failing to post links later on as well. I'm not surprised HT was unhappy at you - many users in that position would be. Finally there's a strong possibility that the block may have been overdone and the view overstated. It also might not have hurt to graciously offer to pass the matter to a different admin when HT raised the concern that he felt uncomfortable about your proximity to the topic area, and without looking bad, offering him to pass it to someone else might have cooled that fear. I can't say for sure as the diffs/links/info needed for uninvolved users to decide what they make of it are missing; perhaps HT really is just a gamer and I'm wrong. But I don't think so, although his tone and use of WP:DR really needs to improve or he will have issues in future. But right now and given the lack of any other alleged issue, that's how it looks.

Please could you post the diffs so we can see the recent other behavior that you feel is relevant and not have to assume? Thank you.

FT2 (Talk | email) 06:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FT2: I'm going to address this to you, as I think I've said all I have to say to Hidden Tempo. It's a little hard to know where to start in addressing this wall of text, but here goes:
  • You repeatedly state that Hidden Tempo has had no "recent" issues, and that he has a record of "apparently clean editing after his block ended on 17 March". You seem to have overlooked or ignored a major piece of context: Hidden Tempo was topic-banned from American Politics from December 2016 through 2 July 2017. (Initially he was topic-banned for 6 months; this was extended due to his ban evasion with a sockpuppet). His period of "clean editing" was a consequence of being forcibly removed from the topic area. Once the topic ban expired, he immediately resumed problematic editing in the topic area, culminating with the agenda-driven edit-warring which led to this block. Saying that he had a "clean record" since March is like looking at someone who's spent the past 2 years in jail for theft and then stolen a TV the minute he was released, and concluding: "Hey, he went 2 years without stealing anything!" I'm surprised that you missed this piece of context during your in-depth review of HT's editing; it's—to use your word—sloppy, especially since I've repeatedly referenced the topic ban with attached links.
  • You suggest that I should have "pass[ed] [the block] to someone else". I placed and announced this block at WP:AN/I, which is probably the single most public forum on Wikipedia, and the most common venue in which to seek feedback about potentially controversial blocks. Several other admins commented in the thread after I placed the block; none felt it was inappropriate (here's the thread). The block has subsequently been reviewed through unblock requests here and at UTRS. To suggest that I acted unilaterally or without oversight is simply wrong. I also explicitly indicated that I was open to modification of the sanction by any uninvolved admin. I don't doubt that if HT keeps seeking a more sympathetic ear, he'll eventually find one (per the infinite-monkeys theorem), but the block was effectively "passed off" for review the minute I placed it and announced it at AN/I.
  • Gaming the system. Take a look at HT's topic-ban appeal from Dec 2016. It should sound familiar; he spends much of his time attacking the sanctioning admin. Specifically, he criticizes the sanctioning admin for her unfamiliarity with American politics, saying that she "admitted to being unable to comprehend 'a good deal' of American politics" and that "this self-admitted lack of understanding calls into question her ability to accurately interpret complex American political issues." Compare this to the current case, where he attacks me for being overly familiar with American politics. Do you see the game he's playing? Admins who avoid American politics are unqualified to sanction him, and admins who are active in editing American political topics are likewise unqualified to sanction him. I suppose that he can only be sanctioned by admins who a) edit political articles, and b) whose edits pass his own personal ideological purity test?
  • On the topic of gaming the system. HT is basically trying to get points for remorse and disputing that he did anything wrong at the same time. He (and you) have complained that I didn't supply a full set of diffs to demonstrate edit-warring. But he's already admitted he was edit-warring (since he was). I can supply diffs for it, but that seems like jumping through a hoop. I mean, he's basically saying: "Please cut me a break because I'm remorseful for stealing the car; but also, you haven't proven I stole the car!"
  • You assert repeatedly that I've failed to supply diffs and supporting evidence. Frankly, I think this is an instance where you're uncritically accepting HT's narrative. The block was placed in the context of an AN/I thread (linked above). The proximate cause was edit-warring (which I don't think even HT has denied that he did), complicated by an evident partisan battleground mentality for which I provided a diff in the block announcement. That is blockworthy behavior, so the only question then is the length of the block. I continue to think that in the context of a) a prior block for BLP violations, b) a topic-ban for tendentious and agenda-driven editing, c) deceptive sockpuppetry to evade that topic ban, and d) a history of abusing leniency when granted, an indefinite block is appropriate. (Frankly, our standard would generally have been an indefinite block for the sockpuppetry). I've linked all of those things and they can be verified by anyone. This block is already in the top 1% of all blocks in terms of justification and discussion; it's gone well past due diligence and accountability and into the realm of vexatious litigation, and you're helping push it along.
I'm sure I've missed something, but my post is already starting to rival yours in length. At a minimum, please re-assess your belief in HT's "clean record" in light of the fact that he was topic-banned during the time in question.

I will say one more thing: my editing history is relevant here, although not in the way HT believes. I've been editing controversial articles for more than a decade. During that time, I've seen countless good, responsible, serious editors leave the project. In many cases, they leave because of the toll of dealing with editors like HT—tendentious, agenda-driven editors who disregard site policy when it suits them. People like him are rarely held to account, because any attempt to do so turns into an unpleasant mud-slinging match sustained by well-meaning enablers who insist on an "all-sides-are-at-fault" narrative, as you're doing here. If HT continues editing, there will be a cost—an intangible cost, but a real one—in the burnout or loss of good editors who play by the rules and care about the project and who have to deal with this kind of stuff.

I understand the role you're playing; you come in, find fault on both sides, and then you get to walk away feeling self-satisfied, your self-image as a merciful and lenient admin intact. HT gets to go back to doing what he does. Everyone wins—except for the good editors in the trenches. I've seen this dynamic often enough to recognize it, and often enough to push back against it.

This will be my last comment on the matter; the main cost imposed by editors like HT is the time-suck of dealing with what should be a straightforward decision, and I'm done. I will ask you (FT2) to do one thing: take maybe 1/10th of the time you're spending on trying to get a 4th or 5th chance for HT, and instead invest it in supporting good, responsible editors who are playing by the rules and working in the trenches to improve the project. They're out there; I can give you some names if you like. MastCell Talk 17:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MastCell: I have read your clarifications with utmost interest, however I just had to shake my head at your patronizing comment about FT2, viz I understand the role you're playing; you come in, find fault on both sides, and then you get to walk away feeling self-satisfied, your self-image as a merciful and lenient admin intact. That was absolutely useless to resolving the present dispute, and utterly mean. — JFG talk 19:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Another concern is that his response doesn't provide the one thing FT2 most clearly asked for: diffs of recent disruptive behavior. D.Creish (talk) 20:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He sort-of did, he refers to his ANI statement. Which did have a diff. Whether or not that's enough is another story. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MastCell - I see what you're saying, but it doesn't feel like it's really facing the matter.
  • You imply I missed the TBAN date. Not so. HT was unblocked in March, resumed editing mainly in May, and TBANed until 2 July. So when you say the relevant period was July onward not March onward, what you're actually saying is that even in the worst case HT has proved he is able and willing to respect a TBAN enough to not get reblocked or warnings for 3 months, and actively edit for 2 months of it without block-worthy issues or discussion of his conduct. That's almost the same as saying a full indef ban is not a necessary measure to protect the project.
  • It also means we have 3 months of editing to see how he acts with TBAN and a month of unrestricted resumption (no TBAN) before Steve Miller. That's a lot to assess his conduct. I also found this diff (see end of diff section) which is worth a look. Even assuming that he was "playing along" until he could target these articles, we still have no links showing signs of habitual incorrigible gaming, either off topic while TBANed (17 March - 1 July) or on topic before Steve Miller (2 July - 1 Aug). We have just one specific dispute, capable of being a good-faith BLP concern handled badly. The ANI/appeals from 2016 aren't relevant without evidence that the conduct shown is resumed/persisting recently.
  • I didn't say you should pass the block. But it is one good way to reduce drama in the case and worth thinking of. Another is giving diffs up front for onlookers and so he knows it's not just bias, and to focus discussion.
  • I don't agree with you about his views on admins. The first link says he wants someone who understands the topic (presumably meaning they have enough background to figure what's valid/invalid mainspace content), and the second link says he wants someone who isn't a heavy or involved editor on it, especially one who appears to edit from one perspective as he sees it. I think he's trying to say he wants an admin who knows the US situation but hasn't been involved in heavy editing in the topic area (especially editing which may seem to be coming from one side more than another), so he can feel more sure they are informed on the topic but by inclination neutral as to getting involved in it. Maybe he won't get to choose who handles his conduct reviews, but I wouldn't say requesting it shows gaming.
  • I don't think I've accepted anyones narrative. That's probably clear. I checked the block out using the info given. I found civility issues and lack of DR by the user, and issues with the block which need clarifying, and described what I saw, but so far no bad faith much less grounds for an indef. If there's any other bad faith, serious, and recent conduct to consider, I can't until I see the diffs/links.
I'm starting to wonder if you perhaps jumped at Steve Miller and felt it "proves" he never meant it all along. I can't go with that right now because of the absence of evidence to show it, and some evidence that seems to hint at the opposite. I don't mean to drag you back when you're done here or argue over it, but an indef ban is serious. This isn't about you. It's about the lack of grounds so far for indef being needed to protect the project from bad faith "hyper" warrioring. It would have been helpful to just post links if any, or say if they don't. FT2 (Talk | email) 21:54, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to finding an admin who knows the US situation but hasn't been involved in heavy editing in the topic area, I would surmise that Awilley, El C and NeilN may meet those criteria. Whether they may wish to comment on this dispute is entirely their prerogative. — JFG talk 00:31, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the support (JFG,D.Creish, and Cjhard). Many editors have personally emailed me to express their support and similar feelings towards MC's actions here, but do not want to get involved for fear of ending up like me. Can't say I blame them, this certainly has been an unpleasant experience.

Objective3000, I believe I've banned you from my talk page already, but in case I haven't: please do not edit my talk page again, under any circumstances. You are not welcome here, for 1) taking advantage of my block to personally attack me [68], and 2) for sharing a very similar AP2 editing pattern to my blocking admin, and thus unable to remain...objective with your input. Thank you for honoring my wishes. Pinging you only so you are notified, but a reply is not welcome.

Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commenting here because I was pinged... I took 30 or so minutes to read through as much as I could of this talk page and the AN/I discussion leading to the block, and based on what I have seen I am disinclined to unblock. While I am not completely satisfied with MastCell's block (particularly the block notice), what is most concerning to me is the WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality being currently demonstrated by Hidden Tempo. @HT, treating editors with hostility because you think they endorse a certain viewpoint is caustic to a collaborative editing environment, and saying that someone can't edit or admin objectively because they have a certain political leaning is a logical fallacy. No admin is going to unblock while you keep that up. ~Awilley (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC) Also, I'm not a fan of the refactoring that seems to have gone on here. The removal of Objective's comment was confusing for me, since it was there when I started reading but gone by the time I was going to reply to it. And why is the first unblock request and discussion collapsed at the bottom of the page instead of being in chronological order? ~Awilley (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for commenting, Awilley. In full disclosure, Objective3000 and I have a long history of negative interactions, going back to last November. In fact, he was one of the editors who made a statement in my AE appeal to try and make sure that the TBAN remained in place. He is banned from my talk page not because of his political leanings/agenda-driven editing, but because he is unable to remain civil towards me in our interactions and is sympathizing with the blocking admin due to sharing similar political views, rather than offering helpful insight.

In contrast, MelanieN and Neutrality are two admins who share similar editing patterns (and therefore likely very similar political views), but both admins are always welcome on my talk page as they are civil, courteous, and have never personally attacked me, despite many disagreements over content. I am confident that if you review the diffs in my unblock request, you will see that I am extraordinarily dedicated to collaboration, building consensus, and ensuring discussion remains focused on content, rather than editors themselves. Just wanted to add some context, but I do feel that my disinvitation of O-3000 to edit my talk page was worded in the most polite terms possible, and I made a real effort to avoid coming off as hostile. If unblocked, I do plan to handle content disputes that get too heated by simply walking away from the situation rather than responding in kind. Thanks again. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) In reply to your addition, I removed Objective3000's request about 3 and a half hours ago, so I'm not sure why it was still there when you began replying. I explained the removal in the edit summary - it contained WP:ASPERSIONS and was unhelpful to my unblock discussion (I believe Drmies aptly referred to such acts as "grave-dancing"). Also, I believe I had already banned the editor previously so I was simply enforcing the ban. The first UBR and discussion is collapsed at the bottom of the page because I am terrible at wiki-coding. I originally tried to collapse it in its original spot, but the section kept pasting itself over my Barnstar that I received during my block, which I wanted to exhibit prominently to highlight the outpouring of support I've received over this sanction. I collapsed it to try to condense some of this extended discussion so reviewing admins wouldn't be discouraged by walls and walls of text, and hopefully they would see how many people have asked MastCell for diffs to support the block, and his refusal to provide them. Please feel free to refactor the collapsed section/original UBR into chronological order, as it would be greatly appreciated. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:53, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@HT, even now you're making assumptions about peoples' political views. How do you know that Objective is "sympathizing with the blocking admin due to sharing similar political views" or that MelanieN and Neutrality have similar political views? (That's rhetorical, don't answer it.) Regarding the first unblock request, it should not be collapsed at all...that's one of the few things you're not supposed to remove from your talk page during unblock requests. Removing comments that you don't like from a discussion is allowed, but it's not something that I personally like. With Objective's comment, I logged on earlier today and saw the ping, followed it here, and began reading. Then I went out to dinner with my wife, returned a couple hours later, and continued reading. When I finally hit "edit" Objective's comment was gone. ~Awilley (talk) 05:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@HT - this is really important advice Awilley is giving. Listen to him/her and take heed. Although not all of your interactions with both non-admins and admins have been positive, this habit of being quick to disparage admins (or any users) whose views differ *and* criticize you, by suggesting that they mostly can't be trusted to be fair or finding fault, isn't likely to be fair, accurate, helpful, or win you any favors. It's also likely to rebound by suggesting an unreasonable edge, that you are seeking excuses to find fault or claim someone is unfair to you, as it did to Awilley (04:35 26 Aug). It seems too quick, not least because you turn to confrontational tones much sooner than seasoned users do.

You have appreciated good faith and I think understand what it means on Wikipedia; you need to give it to others (even those assessing your conduct or coming from other angles) as well. Collaboration means an initial trust (that's the "assume" in "assume good faith") that even those whose views are opposites to yours, will try to treat you fairly and respectfully. When they don't, ask yourself if your assumptions play a part, and follow Wikipedia policies which provide many ways to resolve issues without needing to "page ban" users or assume they are looking for ways to attack you. Admins are appointed after a rigorous process where editors of all colors assess their track record and approach, and they need above about 70-75% of _all_ views to be positive to succeed. In other words, they generally are pretty good whether their views match or are 180 degrees opposite. If not, there are better ways to handle it without disparaging people or making you look like a combative editor trying to game their way by claiming bias. That might be part of why suspicions rise easily, too. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:00, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks FT2, I am willing to take Awilley's advice about WP:AGF for admins and other critical editors who stop by. I am not seeking any excuse to find fault with an admin who supports this sanction - Alex Shih mentioned that he doesn't want to unblock me, and that's fine. I took a look at his user contribs, found he wasn't involved in AP2 articles, and requested his opinion. I was disappointed that he didn't provide any diffs to back his reasoning or address my UBR, but like all admins, he's a volunteer and is under no obligation to do so. What confuses me is that I've been languishing for weeks under this indefinite block, and after repeated requests for diffs and repeated requests to review the block, MastCell still stands defiant. I was under the impression WP:ADMINACCT requires sanctioning admins to supply their reasoning for their sanctions in the form of extensive diffs, and to approve/decline UBR's within a reasonable amount of time, rather than mention the vague catch all "tendentious/agenda-driven" and just leave it at that. MastCell's last comment here was a general rant against "people like [me]," a few attacks lobbed your way, and a final refusal to explain his sanction and/or review my UBR. I'm trying to AGF in the adminship - there must be a good reason that none of them have formally reviewed my request and none of them (save for yourself) have pressured MastCell to explain his sanction. I simply have no idea what that reason is. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:36, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is getting increasingly frustrating. How any admin can look at FT2's analysis of this clearly bad block, and the continued lack of diffs to justify an indefinite site ban, and think this ban should remain is confounding. FT2 described eloquently and in great detail what has always been apparent: there has been no convincing evidence presented to justify this block. It's been almost three weeks since Hidden Tempo was banned, and this evidence has not been provided in all that time, despite repeated requests. One admin being reluctant to undo their own block is understandable, but the larger inaction shakes the credibility of administrators as a whole. Cjhard (talk) 06:01, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cjhard, I feel obligated to point out that indefinite≠forever and block≠site ban. HT is in control of their own future, more so than they realize, and everything they need to do to be unblocked is on this page, if they but make the effort to read, comprehend, and then make the necessary adjustments to their behavior. ~Awilley (talk) 04:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Awilley - I literally had the WP:GAB page open in a Chrome window while I wrote my now-13 day old unblock request. I went through it line by line, to make sure I satisfied every single requirement. If there is anything else I need to do that I somehow missed, please let me know. My blocking admin has stated that he will not answer any more questions and/or review the block. Hidden Tempo (talk) 12:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Offer to convert the block to a topic ban

Bishonen Makes Unblock Offer with Indef T-BAN/12-month Appeal Condition
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Unfortunately I find it hard to believe Hidden Tempo is capable of editing American politics constructively. His entire history shows it, and not least his wikilawyering self-justification and attacks on MastCell following the current indefinite block (his second indefinite block). Yet he can presumably edit with propriety in other areas, for example film and sports, as he did during the earlier topic ban.

Hidden Tempo, if you wish, I will convert the block to an indefinite topic ban from post-1932 American politics, with an appeal on WP:AE WP:ANI or WP:AN allowed no sooner than a year from now. (Your appeals are labor-intensive for the community and any involved admins, and that's part of the reason I propose you wait a full year. Another part is that I want you to have plenty of time to show that you can edit constructively and without evasion attempts.) I invite you to edit film articles and the like in the meantime. There are also the sister projects, which you are free to edit. With constructive editing in some/any of these, an appeal will be more likely to be viewed favorably. If you should evade the topic ban through a sock account or an IP (I can see from this exchange that you were also using an IP, for some very aggressive Am Pol editing, during your previous topic ban), I will block you indefinitely and ask the community for a permanent site ban. Do you accept this conversion of the block to a topic ban? Please think about it — don't reply hastily. Bishonen | talk 10:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC). Added comment: I'll add a note here, per the discussion below; my offer to convert the block to a topic ban will expire two weeks from now. Bishonen | talk 23:42, 31 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]

  • This seems a very reasonable path forward to me. A year is not that bad in the long run, and it would allow HT to contribute constructively outside of the problem area. ~Awilley (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Four days ago FT2 took what must have been significant time to investigate Hidden Tempo's contributions. He found the evidence of disruption since Hidden Tempo's topic-ban expiration wasn't sufficient to justify a block. FT2 requested additional evidence of disruption (diffs) from the blocking administrator; we are still waiting for that. A number of administrators have since commented; unfortunately none of those comments included the diffs FT2 requested.
  • Hidden Tempo's been blocked for 3 weeks; another few days or a week won't make a difference, so there's no reason we can't be diligent. I think it's a serious mistake to discuss any reduction in Hidden Tempo's block unless we can review the evidence; a topic ban may be too harsh or not harsh enough, we can't know without a review. If some don't have the time to invest I'm sure others will. The most important thing is that we reach an informed conclusion. D.Creish (talk) 18:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If admins agree that the indef block was a disproportionate sanction, there are two ways to reduce it: either make it shorter or restrict it to a TBAN. Bishonen's proposal appears to "do a bit of both", which doesn't solve the underlying question. Either HT's general behaviour is deemed unacceptable and he should not be allowed to roam free anywhere, or he is only considered disruptive in American Politics and a TBAN applies best. With the evidence available, I don't see HT's editing as being outside of the mean standard of conduct in the AP topic specifically: while clearly opinionated (aren't we all?) he has been rather mild-mannered, encouraging discussion, following process and willing to concede when consensus is against him.
If HT deserves an indef TBAN with a 1-year moratorium in AP, then the same sanction may be readily applied to a few dozen regular editors on both sides of the political spectrum. I would certainly be one of the first to fall, as being regularly aspersed with accusations of bias and process violations, despite my recently-awarded Barnstar of Diplomacy and having several people encourage me to apply for admin rights (FWIW I'm not interested).
Conversely, if the problematic issues are confined to the recent heated exchange on the Miller article, then a short block is all that's needed, probably a month or "time served". Contrary to MastCell's reasoning, I would read HT's history of sanctions as a demonstration that he has been willing to learn from his mistakes, and has grown as a Wikipedian. A year of purgatory in one of his key areas of editing competence sounds uselessly punitive, and may have a chilling effect on other valuable editors. — JFG talk 20:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG: I don't know you that well but I've seen you around enough to know that whatever problems you might have in the politics area aren't on the same scale as HT. For one, you don't seem to treat it as a battleground, and I don't regularly see you accusing people of bias right and left. Your approach is more collaborative in my limited experience. Granted I'm judging HT largely by what I've seen on this talk page. (Sampling bias?)~Awilley (talk) 04:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Awilley: I think JFG is being humble by throwing themselves in with most editors. In my experience, JFG is one of the few regular editors I interact with in American politics articles who seems genuinely interested in consensus and collaboration with people they disagree with. They're not at all representative of editors in that subject area. But on the other hand, given how WP:AE cases have tended to shake out, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see an editor of JFG's standard getting slapped with serious sanctions, as long as they were perceived to be on the "wrong side." -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hidden Tempo, I hope you seriously consider accepting this offer. I do believe that you can be a positive contributor to the project as at times you have demonstrated this. I do agree with FT2 in that you tend to let your frustration get the best of you which ends up causing you problems. A number of well respected Admins such as Awilley, Alex Shih, FT2 and Drmies have offered you some very helpful advice and I hope you can take it to heart. Best of Luck, CBS527Talk 12:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with JFG, a topic ban does nothing to resolve the fact that the indefinite block continues to go unjustified. Unless the block can be justified, with diffs demonstrating that Hidden Tempo engaged in "repeated instances" of "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing [and] edit-warring" since their prior blocks and topic ban, it should be removed. If the topic ban is on the same basis as the indefinite block it requires the same evidence. If the the topic ban is a consequence of the one instance of edit-warring along with Hidden Tempo's history, it would be harsh, but at least it would have a provided reason with clear evidence supporting it. Cjhard (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The one thing that strikes me, reading through this lengthy thread, is that Hidden Tempo's editing behavior does not appear to be unusual for the American Politics topic area. As JFG said, if Hidden Tempo deserves an indefinite block or a topic ban, then there are literally dozens of highly active editors in American Politics who deserve the exact same sanction.
I anticipate that the reaction to this observation will be along the lines of, "Pointing the finger at others doesn't dismiss HT's behavior." However, when an entire topic area is filled with contentious editors, but the sanctions are handed out overwhelmingly against one "side," then the project has a problem. Let's not kid ourselves - we know that politically, Wikipedia editors tend, on the whole, strongly in a certain direction. Allowing sanctions to be handed out in a sloppy or arbitrary manner is just asking for those political leanings to turn into effective policy, and it will be effectively impossible for editors who don't share the same political beliefs as the majority here to edit American-politics-related articles. I already think we're approaching that situation.
There needs to be greater oversight in administrator actions, especially when those admins are involved in editing the subject area. If there isn't, the problem of partisan sanctions will just continue to get worse, and it will lead to an ever more ideologically unified Wikipedia editing corps. MastCell still hasn't addressed the central point, which is the lack of evidence provided to support the indefinite block. If there are diffs that show HT's editing is beyond the pale for American politics, then the block should be upheld. If the diffs just show HT editing in a similarly contentious manner to everyone else, then one of two things should happen: either the block should be lifted, or the same standard should be applied uniformly to all editors. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I recognize the narrative that you're trying to create: that HT's behavior and track record are commonplace among politics editors, and that the sanctions are therefore disproportionate. I think that narrative is false, but maybe I'm wrong, as I'm hardly omniscient. Are there other editors who have BLP blocks, a topic ban, a block for ban evasion, and a near-immediate return to disruptive behavior in the topic area (e.g. edit-warring) upon ban expiration? If so, please point them out. MastCell Talk 00:02, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat: Hidden Tempo's WP:BLP block was, in fact, for calling Hillary Clinton's trustworthiness poll numbers "feeble." Just ask the blocking admin, Boing! said Zebedee. In my view, that "precedent" should be discarded. It only proves Thucydides411's point.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MastCell: My central point is that sanctions are handed out overwhelmingly to one side, while disruptive editing is found in similar levels on both sides. The number of sanctions someone has received isn't what's important, but rather the history of their behavior. Hidden Tempo has racked up a number of sanctions, but just go down the list of the most active editors in American politics, and I don't think you'll find HT's actual editing behavior is particularly unusual. I don't want to point the finger at specific editors, but any look through one of the more contentious American-politics-related article talk pages will reveal all sorts of POV warring and acrimony by highly active editors. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry; I don't think you really answered my question. You're implying that there are other active editors in the topic area with records of disruption similar to HT's (topic ban, sockpuppetry, edit-warring, etc), but who have been treated more leniently. Could you help me identify them? Otherwise, it might be worth retiring this narrative if it doesn't stand up to basic scrutiny. MastCell Talk 01:17, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@MastCell: I told you explicitly that I'm not here to point the finger at other editors. I'm not lodging a request for anyone else to be banned, so I'm not naming specific editors. If your point is that you won't believe that systemic bias exists in Wikipedia unless I accuse a specific editor, then I'm afraid I can't help you. Just go look through the talk page archives of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, and you'll see plenty of bad behavior on all sides. Compare that to the sanctions log, and you'll see what I mean about systemic bias. It's become blindingly obvious over the past year, but if you're in the majority that's unaffected by it, I can imagine you wouldn't notice it. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:19, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neither does the narrative of Hidden Tempo engaging in "repeated instances" of "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing [and] edit-warring" since their prior blocks and topic ban, which is why we're all here. You've been asked for diffs as evidence of more than that one instance of edit-warring. Do you have them? Cjhard (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is another example of a false or misleading narrative, in my view. I think I was very clear, above, about the rationale for the block. HT's history on Wikipedia shows a pattern of tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing. Examples include the violations of WP:BLP which led to his first block; the further disruption which led to his topic ban; his deceptive sockpuppetry to evade his ban and to continue his combative editing on political topics; and, finally, the edit-warring which led to the current block. All of these are supported by evidence in my previous comments and/or acknowledged by HT; claiming otherwise harms your credibility. This combination of behaviors has historically been more than sufficient to justify an indefinite block.

I'm a little bemused by the defenses offered here. One is that HT is "no worse" than many others in the topic area (I think this is demonstrably false, and have yet to be corrected; and in any case, hardly a ringing endorsement). Another stems from your misreading of the block rationale; the "repeated instances" of misbehavior encompass HT's disciplinary history as a whole. If your argument is that the "only" thing he's done wrong since his topic ban expired is to edit-war, then... well, that's not a very strong argument. A third line of defense is really more of a line of attack, against me as the blocking admin. What these defenses have in common is that they shift blame from HT and seek to excuse, ignore, or normalize his behavior. I don't see that as doing him any favors.

Here's what I see when I look at HT's track record: the only time that he hasn't been documented disrupting the political topic area is when he was topic-banned (and even then, his first instinct was to sock to evade the ban and make more trouble; I hadn't seen the comments he posted as an IP during his ban until Bishonen linked them above, but they certainly fit the pattern). He went back to aggressive edit-warring nearly immediately after his topic-ban expired, indicating that he was biding his time rather than altering his approach. There's nothing in HT's track record to make one hopeful that anything will change in 6 months, or a year. Of course, anything is possible. On the other hand, HT has pretty much zero insight into the ways in which his behavior was problematic, and he's being encouraged by a group of enablers here. In the end, it's not my call, but I do think it's important to push back against some of the narratives that are being constructed here—which are really not doing HT any favors in the long run. MastCell Talk 01:47, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bishonen's proposal is a sound one. One possible slight variation might be, exactly what Bishonen has suggested, but allowing HT to request a review of the restriction at ANI, not less than (4? 6? 8?) months from now. This does exactly as Bishonen says, but reassures HT that he/she won't be seen as "gaming" if he/she wishes a review after several months, on the basis of considerable further track record. It also ensures a minimum duration which supports the points Bishonen makes.

    This might be a workable "middle of the road" that honors the concerns of users who feel there are concerns about the user's editing and a considerable break would help, and also the concerns of users who feel the issue is down to the block:

    (1) It gets HT back to editing quickly; (2) It protects the topic area for no less than 4-8 months and, unless ANI is convinced, for the full year. (3) It avoids everyone being diverted from editing and being dragged through debates/appeals. (4) Bishonen's comment about a sizeable break from the topic area is very sensibly thought out, whether it's for several months or a year, and will probably benefit HT long term. (5) It puts the topic restriction squarely in HT's hands to request a review and the community's hands to do that review. (6) ANI is a good place for uninvolved review which should reassure HT. (7) It has a chance of gaining consensus if Bishonen's original idea doesn't. Given the range of comments, to me this seems a fair reflection that might be workable on both views, as a possible modification to Bishonen's original and sensible proposal. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:55, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @FT2: it's precisely because I'm concerned about "everyone being diverted from editing and being dragged through debates/appeals", as you yourself put it, that I want at least a year to pass before the diversion and the dragging. Have you studied HT's many-pronged appeals of this current block on this page, or his appeal of the T-ban I originally placed in December 2016[69]? (I recommend you to click on the collapse box with a lot of the original text the AE admins made HT remove — it doesn't work right, being a collapse box inside a collapse box, but you can probably see it — if not, this is the most striking bit.) During and after that topic ban, it became clear that six months wasn't enough for him to change his ways; and I don't think "4 — 8 months" will be enough either. You think he can change; I hope you're right; but until I've seen any signs of it, it seems reasonable to assume any upcoming appeal of his will be as divisive and energy-sapping for everyone involved as his appeals have been before.
Anyway, my proposal comes as a package. I didn't put it here to "gain consensus", but for HT to accept or reject. Or for that matter for him to leave hanging while waiting for another admin to formally answer the unblock request; that's fine by me as well, though I'd put a time limit on it; let's say my offer expires two weeks from today. FT2, when you suggest your version "has a chance of gaining consensus", unlike mine, I assume you're not talking about consensus here, on this page..? The commentary here is conditioned by this being Hidden Tempo's talkpage, where he rules. The people who struggle to contain his disruption in the Am Pol area have been consistently made unwelcome on this page for a long time, indeed many have been "banned" from it; if they should nevertheless take the time to comment on the block here, HT blanks it promptly and opprobriously. (This only yesterday.) If you want to see what people who're not screened by HT think about it, could you please take a block review and/or my and/or your own proposal, to AN or ANI for community review? Because community review is not what we see above. And you say above you're not interested in making any formal block decision, which I think is wise.
About your change to ANI as the venue for his ban appeal, I can't say I care. He can appeal at any board he likes AFAIC. Perhaps indeed preferably not at AE, since the block wasn't an AE action, and my commute of it to a topic ban wouldn't be an AE action either.
PS. FT2, your phrasing implies some confusion, probably accidentally, when you write that your modified proposal would "protect the topic area for no less than 4-8 months and, unless ANI is convinced, for the full year." My italics. That sounds like you'd expect the ban to run for one year and then expire no matter whether an appeal is successful or not? That wasn't it. I propose an indefinite ban, with an appeal allowed in no less than one year. I hope HT understood that. If whatever board he takes it to isn't convinced, he'll stay topic banned. Bishonen | talk 11:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen - You're right. I misread the "indef TBAN + appeal in no less than a year", for which I apologize; the point I picked up on was TBAN for at least a year, and no appeal for at least a year. I had reservations for a couple of reasons. See what you reckon though. (I'm not planning to reply arguing any comments, if it's read and not agreed).
My reasons for unease are - * 12 months till first appeal might discourage if he's trying to do right. We would block without appeal that long for serious, unrepentant, current warriors, and I'm not sure that's a fair assessment of HT unless he does more wrong. * By the same logic if his conduct is good after a shorter time perhaps it will be fair/incentivize to at least allow a lesser appeal limit, although not short. * I have real reservations that the assessment of his conduct might be based primarily on very stale evidence that's been superseded by several continual months of decent conduct since unblock (March 17) and end of TBAN (July 2), and missed what seems to be a real change since March, which is quite a while back. In that time there were no notices, blocks, warnings, or discussion of him. His return from TBAN on 2 July wasn't marked with renewal of old conduct, and the only issues even now are civility (which he seems to be trying to take on board) and one very specific BLP issue (where he may well have had complete good faith). There's apparently been no EW/TE at all. * I did see that you have a concern that 6 months TBAN hasn't helped, which I'm unsure about, but you're more familiar than I am with it all.
Anyhow that was the basis of my lingering unease. I doubt I have anything of value to add to that comment, and take for granted that both old and new conduct have been taken into account in your view, so I'll defer to your view. FT2 (Talk | email) 22:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bishonen - thank you for this offer. I have to admit that I was not exactly expecting that my best (and only) offer so far would be coming from you, given our less than amicable history and my less than polite jabs I have taken at you in the past. I do appreciate you taking the time to come to my talk page and presenting a possible solution. However, I don't believe an indefinite AP2 ban without the ability to appeal is just, proportionate, or logical given the circumstances. I understand that requests/appeals can be labor-intensive, but I view it as highly unusual and confusing why my blocking admin is not required to offer supporting diffs, even after being repeatedly asked. MastCell came back from his 2-month hiatus, promptly indef blocked me after ~10 min review of my editing/typing the notice at ANI, and thus likely had no time to gather any diffs. MC has had nearly a month now, yet still, none of us have seen any diffs.

I was disappointed in your statement that my "entire history" shows I am incapable of editing AP2 areas constructively, given this, this, this and this, just a very small sample of edits made shortly before this indef and presented in my unblock request. Without being given any diffs that brought you to that conclusion, I and others have no way to examine the recent edits to which you are referring. Additionally, in my unblock request I explicitly stated that my goal is not to wikilawyer in my UBR, and indeed I did not (per WP:WL). I used WP:GAB and individually addressed each concern of the blocking admin, gave reasons why another 3RR would not reoccur (even to remove BLPVIO material), and made my case as to why I am, and can continue to be, a productive member of the community.

You stated that I can presumably edit with propriety in other topic areas. If you do in fact disagree with MastCell on this point, and noting that MastCell has still not provided a single diff to illustrate my "repeated disruptive, tendentious, and agenda-driven editing," I feel that I should be unblocked regardless of my answer to your offer. My AP2 productivity is a separate issue that should be revisited after the unblock, and any TBAN could then be imposed by you or another admin should he or she feel it appropriate. If an indefinite block is warranted due to my incapability to edit articles related to film, sports, and other areas, I believe I should be given diffs to support the continued implementation of the block. Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for responding. Just to make sure I've got it: is that a "No, thank you" to my offer? Bishonen | talk 07:06, 7 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Hi again. I think you indicated above that you don't accept my proposal, but I'm not sure, so I'll just remind you that I set the proposal to expire after two weeks. That means it'll expire tomorrow, so in case you're still thinking about accepting it, please make up your mind and post accordingly, tomorrow at the latest. If you have a specific reason for wanting to wait longer, please say so. Bishonen | talk 10:10, 13 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Hi - thanks for the reminder and the opportunity to ask for an extension. I'm inclined to decline this deal, as I cannot agree to cease "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing" without any evidence/diffs of this aforementioned behavior. The indef block can't be a result of my AP2 editing alone (else I would only have been indef t-banned), so I must have exhibited this problematic editing in other areas. So how can I be trusted to edit film/sports/etc. articles productively if I have no idea what I've done wrong in those areas? It's been over a month, and MastCell never provided any diffs showing this behavior, despite repeated requests from several editors and an admin (FT2). I am not comfortable with accepting a conditional unblock/T-BAN with the understanding that I am not entitled to know which edits landed me here in the first place, and therefore the nature of edits from which I must abstain once unblocked. Doesn't seem like a terribly tenable solution. If my unblock remains unreviewed by your deadline, I would like to file an appeal at ArbCom (if I am entitled) to remove the block. Thanks again. Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) with Floquenbeam. I'm afraid you can't appeal to ArbCom; they'd reject it. See [70]: one of these three conditions has to apply:
  • The block is an Oversight block or CheckUser block
  • The reasons for the block or information related to your appeal is unsuitable for public discussion
  • You have been blocked or banned by the Arbitration Committee or by an Arbitration Enforcement decision.
I don't see that there's anything unsuitable for public discussion, and the block isn't an Arbitration Enforcement block, it's a regular indef block. Your argument for using UTRS, that you "did not want to publicly air an admin's dirty laundry and be viewed as disruptive/being uncivil toward an admin", didn't cut any ice with UTRS, and it won't with ArbCom either. On the contrary, criticism of an admin should be public, unless there's something very personal involved, which is not the case.
I'm sorry your unblock request still, after a month, hasn't been formally reviewed. I suppose the amount of discussion above scares off admins, and perhaps a fear of themselves being dragged into endless discussion. Mind you, I doubt you'd get any joy if it was reviewed. But it's a loose end, certainly. Bishonen | talk 13:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Responded below to Floquenbeam. I want to make it really clear here that the primary reason for the length of this discussion and complaints about the hassle of responding to unblock requests is the staunch refusal of MastCell to provide diffs proving that the behavior in question has in fact taken place. Without diffs, discussion wanders into other territories with varying degrees of relevancy. If MastCell would simply provide the diffs of "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing," we could all take a look and see what he sees (within the 10 minute period that he took to review my edits), and then have a frame of reference to determine whether or not HT is able to productively edit the encyclopedia. But MastCell didn't want to go down that road. Instead, he finds it more appropriate to drop a final "people like HT are bad, people like me are good" remark on my talk page, and then leave his diff-less block in place without ever answering why he refuses to provide the diffs. This whole thing could have been taken care of within a day - we would simply ask for diffs showing "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing," he wouldn't provide any (since they don't exist), and the block would need to be immediately lifted due to the absence of evidence. But instead, we get obfuscation, poisoning the well, and non-sequiturs (see repeated references to the 7-month old SPI as justification for the "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing,") in the place of diffs, and as such are left with walls and walls of text trying to justify the indef through other means. And yet, no admin except FT2 and multiple regular editors find the absence of diffs to be the slightest bit out of the ordinary. That's why we have this endless discussion. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts that might break the block review logjam

Floquenbeam observations and resulting discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Strange that this unblock request has taken so long; I'm guessing that many admins have reviewed it (or a portion of it), decided not to unblock, but are hesitant to decline because of the inevitable timesink that would follow.

I won't decline this, because my admiration for Bish and MC is well known. I can be unbiased, but I wouldn't look unbiased. But I do want to cut thru the millions of bytes above, and provide a simple perspective that a reviewing admin might find useful.

HT was topic banned from politics earlier this year, and created a sockpuppet to continue editing in the politics area, and then, when caught, pretended not to know this was wrong. It is simply not possible that he didn't know that was wrong; the reviewing admin (when they show up) should do a reality check for a minute, and try to imagine how someone could possibly misunderstand to such an extent; that we've blocked your account from editing a subject for doing disruptive things, but it's ok to continue editing the subject if you just create a new account. It is not possible; that's not obscure WP policy, it is common sense. Basic common sense.

So, we've established not only that HT is a POV-pusher (original block and topic ban), we've established that he lies about stuff. It is invalid to say "hey, I did my time for the sockpuppet thing, you can't use it as justification anymore". It is part of a pattern of behavior. I'm unclear why we would ever want someone like that back in the politics area - we seem to already have our quota of dishonest POV pushers - but WP loves second chances, and he was unblocked, with a limited duration topic ban. HT was thus already on their final chance. It is not necessary to establish a new pattern of behavior after the unblock; the pattern was already established, and the last episode of gamesmanship was the last straw.

FYI, HT, take this with however much salt you want, but I think Bish's indef topic ban is the best offer you're going to get, and I'm a little surprised she offered. If I were you, I'd take it. Sooner or later, a no-nonsense admin who doesn't believe in multiple "last chances" is going to notice this has been languishing in CAT:UNBLOCK for a while, decline it, remove talk page access to stop the timesink, and move on. I'm not positive what the policy pages say, but I've been around a while, and I'm fairly confident ArbCom does not get involved in "normal" block appeals; if this was an AE block or an ArbCom/community ban, they would, but I don't think I've seen them take an appeal of a run of the mill disruptive editor block.

If not, any reviewing admin should keep in mind that, although they are required to explain their block, they are not required to talk to you endlessly about it. I suggest the next uninvolved admin who peeks at this page just read it all once, do whatever they think is right, explain it briefly, and move on. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think your assessment is mostly correct regarding the length of time my unblock request has been active without review - everybody wants to go the party, but nobody wants to clean up. Formally denying an appeal would likely require diffs of "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing" in AP2 as well as other areas. Since such diffs do not exist, especially in non-AP2 articles, this poses a dilemma for a potential declining admin. I also suspect that your reluctance to dissent from highly influential and powerful admin heavyweights like Bishonen and MastCell is a common sentiment in the admin community. Still though, the UBR really should have been reviewed by now. Just a few corrections should any reviewing admin see Floquenbeam's aspersions and make the mistake of believing them to be true:
  • "created a sockpuppet to continue editing in the politics area, and then, when caught, pretended not to know this was wrong" I created a sockpuppet and made a combined 10 remarks on two talk pages, never editing any articles. I admitted to wrongdoing immediately after being reported: [71][72] One and only sock offense, which has no relevance to the diff-less block of "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing" in AP2 or other areas.
  • "we've established that he lies about stuff" No diffs for this aspersion, but I'm a genuine guy - ask me anything, and I shall respond with the truth. And I, for one, have no problem providing diffs (see my UBR).
  • "I'm unclear why we would ever want someone like that back in the politics area" My sanction is an indef block, not a topic ban. That diff-less sentiment about my AP2 editing isn't relevant to this sanction.
Unfortunately, I think you may be correct about Bishonen's offer being the best I'm going to get. If that has more to do with the fact that the diff-less block is appropriate and just, or has more to do with this is a decision for a reviewing admin. However, I am of the understanding that in cases of possible administrator misconduct and inappropriate use of admin tools, ArbCom is willing to review the case. I feel that returning from a 2 month vacation to indef block a user after ~10 mins of contrib review, refusing to provide diffs showing the alleged behavior after multiple requests, and then sandwiching the diff-less block for "partisan, agenda-driven editing" in between chunks of edits consistent with the admin's strict adherence to editing in accordance with liberal/anti-conservative sentiments is more than qualifying. Pinging Ks0stm to ask for clarification on this, as I've already bothered Drmies and Doug Weller enough with this. Hidden Tempo (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If no individual admin wants to take this on, perhaps refer to WP:AN and let the community decide? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • We might could set a record for length. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • We might could indeed ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just a quick comment - if this suggestion comes to fruition, why not just offer three options and limit statements to a simple "Support #(option)" without explanation/elaboration. A short (300 words perhaps) statement from myself (including a link to my UBR), a short statement from MastCell (in which he would be required to provide diffs of the "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing"), and then three simple options presented: 1) Unblock 2) Unblock with indef topic ban 3) Leave block in place. Involved editors/admins are excluded from the process. This is something that I would be on board with. Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:22, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Why not? Because nobody has the authority to restrict the community in that way - the community *is* the authority. If it's thrown over to the community, it becomes totally open to all suggestions. Any editor taking part would have the right to propose any alternative they wish and support any solution they wish, and the result of the community discussion would be decided by WP:Consensus. Your being on board with it is absolutely not required. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • The reason I suggested limiting responses to a simple number is based off of Drmies' suggestion. If length is a concern, why open a forum to inevitable mission creep, lengthy replies, back and forth proposals, counter-proposals, and the likely degeneration into personal attacks/aspersions? I'm well-aware that my approval is not needed for the consensus-gathering process - was just offering my input, since I am of course the primary stakeholder. This UBR has been open much longer than it had to be already. If we had just gotten the diffs, or an admission that no such diffs exist, this would have been resolved long ago. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • My view is that if any admins felt like opening themselves to the timesink of pettifoggery that would inevitably result, your unblock request would have been declined long ago. But that's just my take. Ho hum. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:45, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • There's another theory: the request hasn't been denied because it's hard to justify an indefinite ban based on a single instance of edit-warring by a user with a problematic history and months of good behaviour. I don't think that's petty, I think it's a major indictment. I'd strongly endorse a discussion on WP:ANI to expose this to wider community scrutiny. Yes, it will be a messy conversation, but at least it will resolve the question of whether this is block was acceptable in its scope, length, or existence. Cjhard (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but this all sounds like something I want nothing to do with unless I have to. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E)  If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply.  06:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The T-ban offer has expired

Bishonen Withdraws Indef T-BAN/12-month Appeal Offer
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I'm sure you already know this, HT, but just so everybody who might want to comment here is aware: my offer to convert the indefinite block to a topic ban from post-1932 American politics is past its deadline and is no longer on the table. I withdraw it. It has ceased to be. Bishonen | talk 09:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Over to WP:AN

Boing! said Zebedee's Opening of AN Discussion for Community Review of UBR
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

As I suggested above, I have now put the unblock request on hold and have turned it over to the community at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unblock request at User talk:Hidden Tempo to decide. I think that's the only realistic option at this point. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking action on this, Boing! said Zebedee. Since I am not permitted to edit that board, should I reply here to potential aspersions, or in case anything is said that is inaccurate? Also, am I permitted to ping editors with whom I have had interaction with, or would that be considered canvassing? There are a number of editors who rallied to my defense through email who may not be watching this page or the AN board. Hidden Tempo (talk) 13:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to say anything in that discussion, you can post it here and ask for it to be copied across - if I'm around at the time I'll be happy to do it, and if not I'm sure someone else will. As for the pinging, not really sure, as canvassing can be a tricky subject - I'd prefer to leave that for others to comment. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise you not to respond to any points raised during the discussion. Sometimes it is better to just stay silent. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's terrible advice, for multiple reasons. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mandruss for whatever it's worth, my advice appears to have been ignored. I should have said I would advise you not to respond to all of the points raised during the discussion. Certainly if something was glaringly false there should be a response. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I agree with that. BLUDGEON is never a good idea. HT, I wonder about completeness of the record if your comments below are not copied to the AN thread. We could link from there to here, but will that section be on this page forever? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't plan on responding to each unfavorable vote, only the votes that contain notably false accusations, aspersions, and a gross mischaracterization of events. For whatever reason, a few admins continue to perpetuate the same falsehoods ("HT is a known POV-pusher," "HT's entire editing history shows he cannot edit productively," etc.) without diffs. If a user views these falsehoods without checking their veracity, the user could make the mistake of thinking they are true. Regarding the below section, Boing! said he may do me the favor of copying my responses to the AN thread, but I would never ask someone to commit themselves to that kind of work. Hopefully enough potential "block support" votes will be changed to "unblock support" votes after viewing the truth and absence of diffs from the blocking administrator. Hidden Tempo (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't addressed my concern about completeness of record. I'm not "committing" to anything, but I'll do some copying. For future comments it would help me if you treated it like an edit request, e.g. "Insert after xyz". ―Mandruss ☎ 16:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for volunteering to assist me in the process, Mandruss. It is highly appreciated, and thank you for already taking the time to copy a few of my comments over to AN. I'm not sure if I exactly understand your question about the record completeness. I am more than happy to leave that section on my talk page for the duration of the AN report if that's what you're asking. Will it break the links if I later archive/delete the section? Hidden Tempo (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it will break the links, which is the problem. If all comments are copied, it's not a problem. @Boing! said Zebedee: - We seem to have crossed wires and two of the comments now appear twice at AN. I'll let you sort that as you see fit, but I don't know why HT's comments should be the only ones forced out of context and that would seem to be a slight handicap. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I hadn't spotted that you were copying them - I've reverted my copy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:36, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The three comments to date have been copied individually, and I don't see why that can't continue until we're done. So I don't understand why there would be a need to then copy the whole section. As I said, it will help if you are specific about where to insert each comment; otherwise we are forced to make decisions that aren't ours to make. There will be some delay if nobody is around to do a copy. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:03, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies - would you please move your comments the AN board, or perhaps save them until Mandruss/Boing! has the opportunity to move them over? They have been kind enough to do me the favor of moving my responses since I am not permitted to participate in the discussion due to the diff-less block. I'm trying to keep the below section clean as a temporary spot for my replies, and don't want the waters muddied as has been happening all throughout my talk page over the last month. Hidden Tempo (talk)
HT, I'm going to leave that to either one of them, since they know what they're doing; I'd have to think about it. Ha, I'm going to take a short break from this lovely website--I was just told that I'm "foreign scum" and a bunch more stuff; for the hell of it, I should let you borrow my admin-glasses and show you what some nutcase has said about me on my talk page in the last few weeks. At least this time it wasn't about my family. BTW, Mandruss and Boing are good folks, and I thank both for assisting. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I took the liberty of posting your comments in a new section. I really do want to keep my personal response section limited to my own responses. For the record, Drmies, I have nothing personal against you or any other admin. Text is frequently misinterpreted and I'm not about to start using smiley faces and the like. I have nothing against Boing! and have no intention to "rag" on him. Do I feel that administrators are people, and thus subject to making mistakes? Of course. Do I feel that they are also subject to their own personal biases, just as regular editors are? Yes. It's not in my nature to beg, grovel, and try to "make friends" in an attempt to game the system and try to weasel my way out of a block. The lack of merit in MastCell's sanction stands for itself. If the community would like to take a look at the AP2 edits of MastCell, take a peek at this, and especially this, and see if they see a pattern and connection to the severity of my sanction, then good on the community. If the community finds nothing unusual and no connection, then that's fine too. I am very confident that clear-thinking, objective, reasonable editors will have no trouble figuring out what exactly is going on here. Also, I think I would like to try on your "admin glasses" for a few minutes. I just need to change the "3" in my UBR to a "0," right? Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kyohyi, am I going crazy or did your edit disappear from the AN board? I swear I know how to use ctrl+F but I'm not seeing your comment anywhere now.Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're not crazy, it was removed as an edit conflict I believe. That's just a shit show over at AN, so I haven't bothered restoring it. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are making points in rebuttal, others are missing, ignoring, or not buying your points, and you are repeating the same points to them. That puts you squarely in WP:BLUDGEON territory, which never works in your favor. If you have failed to change minds so far, further replies will only serve to increase the likelihood that your existing rebuttals will be lost in the clutter. Since minds are rarely changed in these things anyway, you've done the best you can in a system lacking impartial judges who would discount !votes that fail to respond to prior good points. You have presented your case. I think the most likely result is the topic ban, unless you annoy too many more people by BLUDGEONing. Another possibility is that the thing will reach that critical mass where nobody has the time to read it, and the default result in that case is no action (I've been there once, and that lesson was well learned). In this situation, no action means no unblock. My opinions. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken, but what am I supposed to do with these falsehoods that continue to be spread? Every editor who I predicted would come to oppose the unblock has done so, save for about three who probably haven't seen the AN posting yet. MrX just posted a bunch of diffs pre-TBAN, which have nothing to do with this indef blcok. Softlavender again accused me of lying. So when an uninvolved admin comes to close the discussion, they might see this and think Softlavender is telling the truth. The admin might see MrX's irrelevant out of context edits and be inappropriately swayed by my edits from last year. It's really the better option to just let that kind of garbage stand unchallenged? Hidden Tempo (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We're conditioned to see these things as debates that can be won using reason and logic. That's largely not the case; all one can do is present their best case and then shut up, hoping people will be convinced. If they aren't, they aren't, and sometimes you're just screwed. Often one is in the wrong but their perspective prevents them from seeing that. I know little of your actual history, or care to, which is why I have not commented at AN, but in my opinion MrX is about as competent as we get in these things. Usually when one is screwed it's not without having repeatedly tested the boundaries. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheTimesAreAChanging - I cannot reply to your ping directly, as I am still indefinitely blocked for an imaginary, diff-less pattern of problematic editing. Currently embroiled in the AN discussion and resulting prevailing groupthink, but what you said about SPECIFICO is correct. She is currently arguing for my demise, getting traction due to her identical AP2 editing patterns as my blocking administrator. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee - will it be you who makes the final call here on the AN outcome? Looks like we have a nice bell curve here by my tally: 5 unconditional unblock votes, 9 unblock with indef TBAN votes, and 5 block votes (with a few of those voting "unblock w/TBAN" as second choice). If I can't get the sanction voided by virtue of the clear WP:EXPLAINBLOCK/WP:ADMINACCT violations, it looks like I'll have to settle for the indef TBAN given for unknown edits. Since the ban is indefinite, the community won't have to concern itself with the fact that I was never shown what I did wrong, and thus won't even have the opportunity to commit the same violations in AP2. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:47, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer to leave it to someone else to judge the consensus and close the WP:AN discussion, and I can then close the unblock request on this page in accordance with that. But yes, I agree, the consensus at the moment is looking like an unblock with topic ban. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re this editsum, the other editors doing copying are not necessarily going to see it. Either add the instructions to the page text or move the comment out of the section headed "for AN report", or both. For that matter, all of the instructions should be in the page text. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just decided to remove it. People like that just aren't worth it and CBS is right, I've more than made my case so it's just a matter of an admin coming to review the noticeboard posting and deciding if diff-less blocks should be voided, or if the !votes should simply be tallied regardless and stick with the result. Either way I wish it would happen soon so I can put this nastiness behind me. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awilley - while I appreciate that you agree with my request to close the thread, I wanted to point out two quick things. One is that I never once attacked MastCell. As I stated, I'm sure he is a fine individual[73]. What I attacked was his judgment and suitability of a highly AP2-involved admin with a clear political agenda (primarily edits favoring abortion and adding/removing material to the detriment of conservative figures) in handing out AP2-related sanctions. There is a clear difference, and it is important. As you can see by the diagram on my user page, I am highly mindful of WP:NPA.

Also, please note that Bishonen's offer is obsolete. She made the offer, I refused because it was intolerable and based on non-existent diffs, and so the offer expired. Many !votes offered varying lengths for a potential TBAN, and most did not include the "appeal only after 12 months" clause. The closing admin should decide on the duration of the TBAN and appeal conditions, should there be one imposed at all. Bishonen gets a !vote, like the rest of the community, but her suggestion should not receive extra weight at this stage of the appeal. Hidden Tempo (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I explained Bishonen's offer for the closer's convenience because it was mentioned specifically by several participants in the discussion, including the OP. Re: you thinking MastCell is a fine individual, I call WP:SOUP, and the diff you give isn't convincing (just read the first sentence). Also the day before you said, "The reason that it was wrong to block me is in in part due to MastCell's hardline, uncompromising AP2 editing agenda, as well as his vile, elitist, tone-deaf rants against editors who do not share his ideologies." [74] Yet you are quick to call "personal attack" when people say less about you. Anyway I hope you get a good closer who is able to take in all the relevant context. I'm still rooting for an unblock with topic ban so that you can edit constructively elsewhere without all this political baggage. ~Awilley (talk) 01:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responses/Discussion for AN Report

Hidden Tempo's Responses Copied to AN Discussion - Thank you for your help Mandruss and Boing!
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This section is not for general discussion or debate. Since I am not permitted to defend myself at the AN board or make a statement, I will be using this section to correct the record when it calls for it, and supply diffs when asked or to provide background. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo_Eumerus
Jo-Jo_Eumerus - I and others welcomed the blocking administrator multiple times to provide the diffs showing the behavior for which I am blocked. He declined each and every time. They were never produced by MastCell, or any of the other administrators who took a passing glance at the UBR. If you believe my quote to be an example of FUD, my invitation to supply diffs showing this pattern of WP:TEND-behavior since my TBAN remains open. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 17:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Floquenbeam
Floquenbeam (only pinging for courtesy) - Again, I am not "sockpuppeting." I made 10 edits to two talk pages with a sockpuppet in February. It was a mistake, I admitted it, and it's done with. Still no diffs for the "POV-pushers" aspersion. Your qualifier "final chances in the topic area" is the lead, here. The unblock is a no-brainer. The real question is to TBAN or not to TBAN, which is an AE issue. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 17:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MastCell
MastCell makes the claim that he has provided "evidence" for his reasons behind the indefinite block (""tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing [and] edit-warring"), after being confronted once again for his refusal to provide diffs of the post-TBAN behavior in question[75]. However, as every reasonable editor understands, a link to an ANI discussion in which I was tangentially involved and an AE appeal from last December is not "evidence" of the indef-worthy post-TBAN behavior which he is claiming. MastCell has not provided diffs of the behavior in question. Period. I admitted to the 3RR violation (as a result of removing BLPVIO material). The other three claims are catchall, vague, highly general and subjective accusations for which there is no evidence, which is why MC either a) can't find any diffs or b) has the diffs, but refuses to provide them for some unknown reason. I leave it to the community to decide which possibility is more likely. Hidden Tempo (talk) 16:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 17:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Three sections above copied to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Responses/Discussion from Hidden Tempo. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]

(Oops, I hadn't spotted that User:Mandruss was already doing it - I've reverted my addition of that new subsection. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]
(sorry for the long wall - we've been waiting for MC to respond for a very long time)

The personal attacks and falsehoods from MastCell serve to illuminate several points I've been making all along, starting with the crass epithet of "enablers" directed to those who dare question MC's authority and judgment. MC cites this diff as his supposed "evidence." There's just one problem: the diffs within his diff are (2) references to my TBAN, (1) of the sockpuppeting, and (1) of my TBAN appeal. In Nfitz's ANI report, MC says that "the behaviors in question [tendentious, hyper-partisan...etc.] appear refractory," but does not post diffs of this claim. MC also says "HT was blocked for edit-warring and violating 3RR...HT has admitted to the edit-warring, so I find the repeated demands for diffs a bit dishonest", indicating that he doesn't even understand what the community is requesting. We have established that I violated 3RR in the process of following WP:BLPREMOVE. Nobody needs diffs for that infraction. What we need is the diffs of the behavior that he calls "refractory." Also: "He's admitting the edit-warring and asking for leniency points for remorse, but at the same time aggressively disputing the evidence for the block." Again, the block was not solely for a 3RR. The official reasoning was: "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing; edit-warring; repeated instances despite prior blocks and topic ban" Where are these repeated instances post-TBAN? Where, MC? You're just going to leave it up to our imaginations? Clear WP:EXPLAINBLOCK violation.

You also submit that I "was given a last, last, last chance which he promptly abused". You can make the case that the "last...chance" was implied, but after my TBAN expired, I asked Doug Weller if I needed to do anything special. I was told to "be careful"[76]. Nothing about a "last, last, last chance" as you say. In reference to pleas from the community to abide by WP:EXPLAINBLOCK, you deflect with this attack: "It is absolutely dishonest, and reflects very poorly on them." I'm not going to get into a war of personal attacks with you, MastCell - I trust the community not to fall into the groupthink trap, and actually click the diffs. Please don't take my word for it! Click MC's diffs and see if he's providing this evidence that he says exists. A passed RfA should not turn one's words into gospel that is immune to scrutiny.

"But his real passion is reserved for attacks on me, and secondarily on anyone else who's supported his block. Just looking at today's output, I'm "vile", "elitist", "tone-deaf", etc..." I've lost count as to how many times I've had to tell you this: nobody is attacking you. I'm sure you're a perfectly good class of people. What is being attacked are your edits and your sanctions, in the context of your AP2 editing agenda to protect abortion and attack public figures who you view as critics of abortion. I stand by what I said about your edit on Floquenbeam's talk page, in which you viciously trash your fellow Wikipedians and reminisce about the good ol' days when more people were around who agree with you politically. Please don't take challenges to your sanctions personally. None of us have anything against you personally, that I know of. Final note - your timeline is a bit fuzzy regarding two prior sanctions. I received the BLP block (calling an 11% trustworthiness rating of Hillary Clinton "feeble") during the TBAN, not before. It's vital to get the facts right, here, since there's a lot half-truths and outright false claims circulating here. For instance, it's a fact that I was blocked for saying "11%" is feeble, accompanied by a RS.[77] It's also a fact that you issued a milquetoast "warning" to another editor to "watch his language" [78] after he repeatedly referred to a living person (Donald Trump) as a "piece of shit," "bigot," and "misogynist" [79][80][81], all unsourced. Please observe how actual diffs of specific edits support my words. Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Much time has passed since you posted this, and the landscape has changed in that time. Do you still want to copy this? Do you want to copy it unchanged? Where do you want to copy it? Do you still want to copy it with that {{od}}? ―Mandruss ☎ 19:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Mandruss - no, please don't move it over. It's slightly out of date and the discussion is long enough as is. Just the below edit if you wouldn't mind. Thank you. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done ―Mandruss ☎ 20:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell continues to make the same mistakes and utter the same falsehoods. Following the same exact flowchart template he's been using for a month: 1) he says I'm not accepting responsibility for the editing behavior for which he refuses to provide diffs, despite my UBR and repeated acceptances of responsibility for the 3RR 2) attempt the "Look at this over here, instead!" sleight-of-diff (linking pre-TBAN/mid-TBAN editing, rather than the "repeated instances" of problematic editing for which I was blocked) to distract from the absence of diffs, 3) utter damaging and demonstrably false claims, and hope nobody notices (never once did I assign fault of the socking to "someone else"[82]), and I also never called into question the AP2 edits of any other admin - just yours. Then, you cite somebody else's diff as part of your strategy to lend credence to what you are saying. Pinging Thucydides411 so he is aware of the egregious dishonesty of this act. Then, you finish with the tired old falsehood that you keep repeating, that YOU are being attacked. And for the nth time, you are not being attacked. Your sanction within the context of your agenda-driven abortion/AP2 editing pattern is what I, and others, have called into question. I explained the difference to you in detail here, which was never moved to the AN board (too long, but the takeaway is that you never provided diffs for what you call "repeated instances [of problematic behavior] despite prior blocks and topic ban") and I addressed your slur of "enablers" for those with whom you disagree. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 20:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Awilley
Awilley uses the same rationale as MastCell - contending that a link to a pre-indef AE appeal and a link to Nfitz's ANI report (also pre-indef) is sufficient evidence for a pattern of post-TBAN "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing [and] edit-warring" editing. It's not. A sanction as severe as an indef block requires detailed, clear, unambiguous diffs of my edits, showing the claimed editing pattern. Intentional or not, MastCell muddies the waters and poisons the well by going on and on about pre/mid-TBAN behavior. "He was TBANNED last December...he edited a talk page with a sock last February...he got into a heated content dispute at Stephen Miller..." That doesn't cut it. If I had the diffs, then I could see the problem to which you and MastCell are referring, view the specific edits in question, and then address the problem and rectify the editing pattern. But of course, we never saw the diffs. Ex: Awilley is an employee and comes into work, but is sent home because Awilley is not compliant with the company's dress code. Awilley must be told explicitly and specifically how he is violating company policy, or else Awilley will come into work day after day, and be sent home day after day, until Awilley figures out the correct wardrobe combination. Is Awilley being treated fairly? Does this scenario indicate a productive, efficient process of remedying a problem? That is what is happening here. I addressed each and every single block reason in my UBR and followed WP:GAB to the letter, and I did it with diffs. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 17:35, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies
Drmies - it appears that you are now addressing the content dispute itself, rather than discussing the validity of MastCell's diff-less block. You will probably not be surprised that I entirely disagree with your view that the Politico op-ed was sufficient for the material. You may remember that I was once blocked by Boing! said Zebedee for referring to an 11% trustworthiness rating as a "feeble" number[83], since the RS I used (not an op-ed, by the way) did not also use the word "feeble." This is why I believed the imaginative and very loose interpretation of the op-ed to be a BLPVIO, and required its removal (see FT2's explanation below). Additionally, even if the material passed mustard, that page is a BLP and therefore editors must not reinstate contested material that had been removed, without building consensus on the talk page. I have no clue what Rjensen's views are on the activities of one George Soros, and fail to see how they're relevant to WP:BLPREMOVE policy, which really couldn't be more clear. But this AN report is not a forum to debate the content. This is about my diff-less, evidence-free block. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:08, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 04:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but that belt analogy didn't really make your t-shirt analogy more clear (on my end, at least). I believe you're contending that my alleged post-TBAN pattern of "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing [and] edit-warring" is so immediately apparent, obvious, and unambiguous that MastCell is completely exempt from WP:ADMINACCT and is thus not required to provide diffs (outside of a few non-sequitur links to an AE appeal from last year and somebody else's ANI report)? If I've gotten that right, then why the need for a very polarized AN discussion? Several editors have rallied to my defense here (for which I am extremely grateful, by the way), echoing my sentiments about evidence-free sanctions being permitted to stand, and observing none of the behavior that MastCell believed to be so egregious as to warrant an indefinite block in order to protect the project from my film, sports, and yes, even my AP2 edits. If what you're saying is true, no discussion would be required. To stick with your analogy, perhaps Awilley would be arriving to work without a required red pocket square (even though Awilley is wearing one), sent home without being told why, and refusing to give a reason after being asked for one repeatedly. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 04:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality
Neutrality - this is the first time I've ever seen a diff-less block earn the characterization of "well supported." Of course, my indef is probably the first time I've seen a block without diffs period. A block given without diffs, with multiple refusals to provide these supposed diffs that may or may not exist can never be described as "adequately explained and well supported." You go on to say that I did not acknowledge that my conduct was not ideal or say that I can be productive. Did you read my UBR? If you had, you would have seen this, this, this, this and multiple other edits where I explicitly acknowledge violating 3RR policy (even when taking WP:BLPREMOVE into consideration), accept fault for the violation, and lay out my reasons why I can, and continue to be a productive editor. You also used very imprecise language (as others did) to describe my critique of the blocking administrator: "bashing the blocking admin", when that's not at all what I was doing. I'm sure MastCell is a fine person and admin. I have no personal qualms with MastCell. My problem is with his application of this sanction without the required diffs, especially with his AP2 editing patterns and highly irregular and alarming timeline surrounding his 10 minute review of my user contribs. Finally, when someone says this, and then suddenly decides I am in need of an indef TBAN, we really need to take a step back at some point and decide if the full story is on display, here. Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 04:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality - at least four editors and one administrator have requested diffs from MastCell, to no avail. Your thesis seems to be that a link to a declined 2016 AE appeal and Nfitz's ANI report satisfies WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. It does not, as the extremely divided response to MC's indef shows. MrX provided diffs pre-2016 TBAN. Bishonen warned me and subsequently TBAN'd me partially due to those diffs. The TBAN expires, and after ~1.5 months, I receive an indefinite block, for edits after the TBAN. This indefinite block is for an editing pattern post-TBAN in that 1.5 month window. We are asking for the post-TBAN diffs that show the post-TBAN problematic editing pattern, which have not been produced by MastCell, Drmies or any other Wikipedian. We are not here to debate 2016 pre-TBAN edits.

I understand that you have a different interpretation of WP:BLPREMOVE than FT2 and I, but I admitted to 3RR (as anyone who read my UBR already knows): "[I] made a mistake by violating 3RR a few days ago. I should have waited for my OR noticeboard posting[1] to come to some conclusion.","I have already stated that my single 3RR violation in my editing history was a mistake, and would not reoccur","While it does not excuse my violation of 3RR, I did so [per WP:BLPREMOVE"],"3RR is the only one that has any real validity, which I already confessed to and said I would not repeat.". So my first ever 3RR vio has been handled. We are now asking for post-TBAN diffs of "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive" editing in AP2/non-AP2 areas which definitively show the need for an indefinite block. Please, Neutrality, stop perpetuating demonstrably false narratives without reading the talk page discussion. I cannot acknowledge problems with the "substance of the edits" if ZERO post-TBAN edits have been provided. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:39, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Valeince
Valeince - how much of my UBR did you read? I addressed each reason point by point. However, I can't get into specifics because MastCell refuses to provide diffs of the behavior which he alleges occurred after the TBAN. If MastCell would show us some evidence, some diffs of this pattern...perhaps then I could explicitly address those edits. Until then, we can only speak in general terms and make guesses as to what MastCell thinks is "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive" editing. Also, take a look at my UBR. I explicitly said numerous times that should another WP:BLPREMOVE issue arise, I would take allow my NOR posting to resolve before removing the contested BLPVIO material. Please fully inform yourself with the facts before commenting on this discussion. Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 04:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Softlavender
Softlavender - you are more than entitled to your own opinions on my editing, and whether or not my UBR sufficiently addresses the diff-less grounds for the indef. What you are not entitled to is casting WP:ASPERSIONS. I already had to correct this falsehood when it was uttered by Floquenbeam, so it appears you did not read through the discussion very carefully. I admitted to the sockpuppeting immediately - I did not "lie" about it.[84][85] An editor of integrity would immediately strike such a glaring blunder of this magnitude and distaste, and I would again ask that editors refrain from commenting further before actually reading through the discussion (not skimming) and clicked on the diffs. I understand it is extremely long and involved, so nobody would think less of you should you choose not to read through it, and therefore not attempt to offer an uninformed opinion on my fate. Editors are welcome to suggest unfavorable outcomes, but rubbernecking and spouting off a few bytes of random text is dreadfully poor form. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 05:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bishonen

Not going to respond to every Bishonen claim here, in the hopes that folks will actually click on the diffs and verify if what she says is in fact true. As I had previously stated, nobody would think less of anyone for not educating themselves with the facts of the talk page discussion, and thus recusing themselves from voting/commenting. I don't remember anyone informing me that I may not correct false claims or respond to aspersions in the AN discussion. The 3RR vio (which Bishonen sees as a WP:CRYBLP issue) has been discussed and resolved. The fact that the only diffs editors can find are of pre/mid-TBAN behavior, rather than the alleged behavior for which the block was given, speaks volumes. Instead of showing us diffs of this supposed "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive" editing pattern, a few users, which now includes Bishonen, continue to regress to pre/mid-TBAN diffs. But of course, the pre-TBAN diffs are NOT the reasons for the block, and a first 3RR vio block would have expired long ago. This "circus" could have been avoided if the right thing was done in the very beginning: do not indefinitely block editors without giving a warning, and especially do not do it without diffs (per WP:EXPLAINBLOCK). Thuc got it right: banning editors without evidence (no, a 2016 declined AE appeal and Nfitz's ANI report is not "evidence") and then accusing the editor of being a "time sink"/"time suck"/wasting time when he defends himself is quite Kafkaesque. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 21:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
MjolnirPants

MP - I am going to AGF and operate under the assumption that you are offering your completely unbiased, neutral, and objective opinion. However, I noticed that your AP2 edits have the identical overarching theme of MastCell's, MrX's, SPECIFICO's, and Objective3000's AP2 edits, and recently uttered this without a hint of satire or jest, yet you still felt it necessary to cast a !vote anyway. I am offended and irked by that decision. Today, you said this: "the claim that MastCell never provided any diffs to justify the block is straight up bullshit". There is some nuance here. Did he provide diffs to justify his indef? Yes, he linked my 2016 AE appeal of a TBAN and Nfitz's ANI report. What he did NOT do was provide the most critical and relevant diffs: edits that showed a pattern of "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive" editing after the TBAN expired. A couple out-of-place diffs does not satisfy WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. Nobody has been able to find these diffs, including MastCell, which is why so many of us have concluded that they do not exist. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 23:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TheGracefulSlick

TGS, I've already responded to this claim multiple times, so I would direct you to those replies. The takeaway is: I cannot "outright [take] responsibility for all the reasons" (a "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive" post-TBAN editing pattern) if the blocking administrator can not or will not provide diffs showing this editing pattern. I have outlined my post-unblock plans in my UBR (did you read it or just skip to the "opinion voicing" part?) and I've addressed each alleged block reason in a general sense. However, all of us are being asked to critique the Emperor's new clothes. Unsurprisingly, many editors aren't letting the absence of diffs and facts stand in their way of having an opinion and sounding off, here. A correlation has emerged between how the community votes, and whether or not they've noticed that MC has not provided the specific blockable post-TBAN diffs that we have repeatedly tried (unsuccessfully) to pry from MC. If we see these diffs, and they show what MC claims they show, I will not only admit that I'm a terrible person/disruptive/activist editor (and any other awful things contained in the diffs), but I will shout it from the rooftops. Only after we see the diffs, though. Hidden Tempo (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ~Awilley (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cbs527

Cbs527 - I'll only address this remark: "HT has insinuated (or insist depending how you look at it) that only post-TBan differences can justify this block . He is quite mistaken." I'm not sure if I've been unclear with the point that many of us have been making, or if our wires were crossed somehow, but that's not at all what I have been trying to communicate. The point is that MastCell claims the indef is for "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing," and tacks on the "edit-warring" at the end (note that the editors I edit warred with, who were reinstating the contentious material without consensus received no warnings or sanctions). MastCell stated that "the behaviors in question [tendentious, hyper-partisan...etc.] appear refractory," indicating that this editing pattern has continued after the TBAN expired. So it's either a) MC is blocking me for something I've already done time for, b) MC is indef blocking me exclusively for an alleged first-time 3RR offense, or c) MC is indeffing me for post-TBAN edits, for which he is withholding diffs. In all three cases, the block is invalid and should have long-expired for a first-time alleged 3RR offense in the process of abiding by WP:BLPREMOVE. Hidden Tempo (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - There was already a reply to Cbs527, so I added this after that. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think everybody's about had enough of this thread and said their piece. Bishonen suggested that this thread remain open through last weekend, and it has stayed open much longer than that now. This is going around in circles and just as I predicted[86], the thread has now degenerated into aspersions[87], personal attacks[88], and false accusations/half-truths[89][90][91]. Let's simplify what's been learned so far from this Rorschach test of an unblock appeal, and I think I've summarized most major points of view and facts:
The facts thus far
  • Many believe my appeal to be nothing more than a "time sink," "time suck," and a waste of time for the "good" editors. This same group also believes my manner of speaking is merely wikilawyering and/or "gaming the system." Additionally, arguing my case in my own appeal has been called WP:BLUDGEON'ing, many times.
  • A large group of editors feel that MastCell has adequately explained his indefinite block[92], which was for a 3RR violation after "repeated disruptive, tendentious, and agenda-driven editing and edit-warring, despite numerous previous sanctions for similar behavior." This same group also claims that diffs have been provided of this behavior on pages I've edited since my TBAN, such as Sean Spicer, Linda Sarsour, Mitt Romney dog incident, Fake news, Jean Lake, James Comey, Game Change (film), Dave Gettleman, Dunkirk (2017 film), A.B. Stoddard, Lucky Whitehead, and New England Patriots, and anyone who says otherwise is simply exhibiting WP:IDHT behavior.
  • Another group, of which I am included, has not been able to find these diffs anywhere and feel that WP:EXPLAINBLOCK has not been satisfied. We maintain that we have not seen the evidence that MastCell says was enough for an indefinite block. This point has been one of the primary points of contention, and I have contended that the other group is in fact exhibiting WP:IDHT behavior. After an editor noted that diffs still have not been provided, an administrator who previously claimed there ARE in fact diffs[93], simply says "I don't care about the diffs"[94] after being asked for a diff of the diffs being provided, and accuses anyone who cannot find them of being "blind to them."
  • One "support block" voting administrator complained that I was "uncollegial"[95] at Stephen Miller by calling another user "bud," several times. This same administrator feels that this is an appropriate way to speak to other Wikipedians.
  • In my unblock request, I addressed each reason for my block one by one. I could not cite specific diffs given by MastCell of "repeated instances" of the problematic edits, as he did not provide any. However, I did the best I could to assure MastCell that such behavior would not be a problem for me, and provided multiple diffs showing that my editing at large was being mischaracterized.[96]
  • Several administrators have noted that I did not follow WP:GAB, while I and others have pointed out that I did in fact follow WP:GAB,[97], and itemized each of the three main instructions one by one.
  • Many administrators and editors have criticized me for not "taking responsibility" for my block. However, there is an orgy of diffs indicating the contrary.[98][99][100][101][102][103]
  • I have been repeatedly attacked as being WP:NOTHERE and exhibiting WP:TEND. These criticisms come despite diffs showing creation of a film-related article and hyper-collegial behavior, while also attempting to resolve content disputes at the noticeboards instead of edit warring.[104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112]. This edit was made about 1 week prior to my block, during a content dispute, in which I say: "I'm fine with whatever the consensus is, please don't view me as an obstruction to progress being made in the article or from establishing consensus!" and "I feel I've made my case. I'm ready to move on...Thanks for all the discussion regarding this."
  • The editors, including myself, have been asking for diffs of the "repeated instances" of the problematic behavior of my TBAN since this is what allegedly led to the indefinite block. The reason why we have emphasized the importance of these diffs to such an enormous degree is because a sanction without evidence is invalid, and thus my appeal should be granted. Additionally, specific diffs of the problematic edits would be of invaluable help so that I may address the specific edits with specific language, and specifically explain to the community why those specific problematic edits would not occur. Alas, this opportunity was never available to me, as we never received any specific edits. The closest we got is MastCell pointing to problematic editing leading to a TBAN and poor behavior during the TBAN.
So the facts have been established, and important milestones and key points of debate are within the collapsed section. I, and it seems the vast majority of participants, are more than ready to have this report closed. I made my case, and many others have made their case as well. Please let's not spend any more of our time arguing the same points again and again. If an uninvolved administrator could close this, I think we would all be very grateful. While there is a good amount of "unblock without restrictions" !votes, it seems the !vote tally is not in my favor. Nonetheless, this has run its course. Thanks to !Boing for taking action and moving this appeal along, and thank you to all the editors who saw what I saw and voted accordingly. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandruss - not really sure where this goes. If we could make this an "Oppose TBAN, Support Unblock" !vote under "Additional Considerations" I suppose that would be ideal, but I don't know if I'm allowed to vote in my own appeal. Otherwise, perhaps directly above that section and directly below Johnuniq's vote would be best. Thanks for all the edit moving, hopefully this will be closed very soon. Hidden Tempo (talk)
Such a !vote would be best placed in the first survey, I think, but I don't think you get a !vote. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:15, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps just insert as a *Comment, then? Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Write a Comment, specify placement, and I'll copy it like all the others. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:23, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Indented each of the bullets within the collapsed content. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AN Discussion

Discussion re: the AN Discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

(refactored from above)

Hidden Tempo, I'm sorry you misread my comments. I wasn't commenting on content as much as explaining why your article edits and talk page contributions were clear enough indications of blockable behavior. In my opinion, of course. BLP exemptions, by the way, need to be reasonable, so it's not like the mere claim of a BLP violation suffices. Moreover, there are two living people involved, and the contention is that one of those edits of yours was a BLP violation of the other person, so to speak. I hope that clears it up.
Sorry, failed to look at the "feeble" thing. RexxS is a pretty straight shooter, and this edit summary indeed was not your best moment--one can argue, I suppose, that you've had it in for Marek since then or even before, but that's neither here nor there for now. I'm not quite sure why you want to point me to a discussion where you were blocked for a BLP violation, and unblocked on the condition that you grasp the BLP, when that's precisely what we're discussing. User:Boing! said Zebedee, of course, is the one who got this whole discussion going for you in the first place, so again, why would you want to rag on them right now? I'm asking because I just don't understand the tactics here--if I were you I'd be making friends, not pointing at old things that don't make you look good, while criticizing those who have been good to you. Now, if this is only about paraphrase, I've been teaching paraphrase for 20+ years, and I think that was a pretty good one. Take care, Drmies (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 04:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point was that the reason for your block was pretty clear. No, that doesn't mean no discussion is ever required. What it means is that not all cases are the same--some are easily nailed with a diff or two, others are shown by an overview of a particular discussion and a few other pointers. That so many admins (and other editors) agree, and that no one except for Boing, who is a very kind individual, and FT2 have chosen to even engage with you should be a pretty clear signal too. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done ―Mandruss ☎ 04:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Timothyjosephwood - I'm a libertarian living in Los Angeles. If I wanted to argue politics, I would just need to step outside and say something that Maxine Waters and Eric Garcetti wouldn't agree with, although I might end up beaten, set on fire, or worse. The reason I am arguing so strenuously against handing me a topic ban is because I feel like William Shatner in an episode of The Twilight Zone. I have pointed out again and again that MastCell has not given us diffs of the blockable behavior, and thus I cannot specifically address his concerns and explain why I will cease this alleged editing pattern. And again and again, I am met with one of two responses: 1) Someone says that MastCell DID provide the diffs, but can't link to where he posted these diffs and do not provide them for themselves, or 2) Muddy the waters and instead focus on pre/mid-TBAN diffs, all of which are separate from the reasons that MastCell says require an indefinite block in order to protect the project. But nobody seems to think this is odd except for myself, five other editors, and an admin who declined to formally review the block. It's truly bizarre, and I'm really baffled to how this could possibly be happening when all of our words are in ink. So my already unpleasant predicament is compounded by the fact that everyone is discussing whether or not the Emperor's new clothes are too ornate, do not fit well, etc., while I (and a few others) seem to be the only editors who realize he's not wearing any clothes. Does this analogy make sense? I mixed and matched some metaphors there, but I think you get the gist. Hidden Tempo (talk)

The series of responses you have given only lead me to one of two conclusions: either A) you are more concerned about arguing politics than building an encyclopedia, or B) you are more concerned about being right than building an encyclopedia. I'd invite anyone watching this conversation to arbitrarily TBAN me from any part of the project and I'd be fine with it, because I'd go somewhere else and make improvements there. You don't seem to share that sentiment.
If you can learn to share that sentiment then you are useful. If you cannot, then you are not. TJWtalk 00:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are unique in that regard. Most editors have a few particular areas where the bulk of their edits are concentrated. I have stated many times that I am much less concerned with being right than getting it right. My personal views are checked at the door when I log in to the project. Believe me, if you topic banned MastCell from abortion or AP2 areas, he would immediately notice. You'll see that nearly all of his edits are related to promoting/protecting abortion in some way - judges who have made it harder for women to get abortions, political commentators who have denounced abortion, politicians who aren't fond of abortion, and various other AP2 articles.

When you can derive nearly all of an editor's political views from their edits and sanctions (like the gentle warning he gave to Nfitz for calling a living person a "bigot" and "piece of shit" numerous times), you know there's a problem. And yet, MastCell is somehow "useful," while I am not, but of course we're all supposed to pretend this and this has absolutely nothing to do with my predicament vs. MastCell's unfettered ability to hand out diff-less AP2 sanctions. Once again, I have no desire to argue about politics - only content. For example, on Dismissal of James Comey, I made the point that the line about "Nate Silver thinks it's possible Comey's letter cost Hillary the election" should be removed, since an AAPOR scientific study found this to be demonstrably false, and made the content UNDUE and POV. My opinion of why Clinton lost (and we all have one, let's be honest) is irrelevant, and I never voiced it after I did served out my TBAN. And that's just one example. Hidden Tempo (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly not even reading this, because it's not worth my time, and it happens that arguing with you doesn't actually improve the encyclopedia. I advise you to accept the TBAN voluntarily, and show us that you might one day be a valuable contributor. If you continue to argue I will probably change my !vote from a TBAN to an indef. Beyond that advice, I don't watch this page and I will not respond to pings. TJWtalk 00:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I appreciate the input and advice just the same. Thuc has just left an eloquent description of the phenomenon that is occurring right now on the AN board, in case you're interested. Hidden Tempo (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]


@Ivanvector - Multiple users have now complained that I shouldn't be saying that MastCell's block being improper. Per WP:GAB/WP:NICETRY: "It is not enough if you just say that the block was "wrong" or "unfair", or another user violated a policy first. You must explain why it was wrong to block you, or why it should be reversed." There is nothing in the guide saying "Just make sure that you leave the blocking admin out of it, and WP:EXPLAINBLOCK exempts admins from providing diffs. Admins are divine beings since they made it through an RfA, and are thus immune to scrutiny." The reason that it was wrong to block me is in in part due to MastCell's hardline, uncompromising AP2 editing agenda, as well as his vile, elitist, tone-deaf rants against editors who do not share his ideologies.[113] You say that I am repeating the disruption in the topic area, but do not provide diffs. You say MastCell has "explained [the block] in incredible detail," but provide no diffs. Why are we supposed to take these claims at face value? At least a dozen editors have posted nearly the same exact comment, vaguely referencing this notion that MastCell has already provided the diffs and claiming/citing the supposed problematic pattern, but everybody forgets to provide the diffs. Why? I said it again and again - I have no problem acknowledging the problematic behavior and agreeing to change it, but without seeing the problematic behavior in the form of diffs, how could I possibly agree to change it? I already addressed violating 3RR in the midst of following WP:BLPREMOVE, but which edits of mine were "tendentious"? Which were "disruptive"? Which edits were "hyper-partisan"? Let's take it step by step. Let's see the diffs of these specific edits showing this return to the problematic behavior after the TBAN expired, and then we can go from there. Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple users have provided the diffs, and I referenced at least one of those in my comment. That you are for some reason blind to them does not make it so that they are not there, and your ongoing demand to have things explained to you when they have already been explained in great detail is not endearing editors to your cause. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, you didn't. I checked. You did the same thing everybody else did: said the diffs existed, said MastCell provided the diffs, but provided no diffs of the alleged blockable editing, nor the diffs of MastCell providing the diffs. The only diffs that have been provided are either from pre-TBAN (not the blockable editing), mid-TBAN (also not what MC cited as the blockable editing), and the 3RR (which I acknowledged occurred, admitted to, and assured the community would not reoccur). And why is that? Is it that much of a "time sink" to copy-paste a diff? See, if this is just a popularity contest to see if I'm "endearing" enough to have earned justice/diffs, I can handle that. Just say, "Look, HT. We don't have the diffs and you haven't done anything to deserve being indefinitely blocked from creating any more film articles or updating the BLP's of athletes. We simply don't like you." But this whole charade of pretending there's some enormous stockpile of diffs somewhere (which nobody can be bothered to ctrl+c and then ctrl+v) showing that I have this definitive pattern of post-TBAN problematic editing is just absurd. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: I've noticed that everyone talks about the diffs, but nobody actually posts them. I've looked for MastCell's diffs, and I haven't been able to find them. After a couple of tries to find them, and a couple exchanges where MastCell said they existed, but wouldn't post them, I've concluded that MastCell probably never posted them. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The simple fact is I don't care about the diffs, the block has been thoroughly rationalized and was thoroughly endorsed at ANI. I'm not about to hold your hand and read those discussions to you, they're there for you to look at if you could be bothered to stop wasting everyone else's time. You're blocked because of an ongoing pattern of disruptive editing that's clear to everyone except you apparently, and your behaviour throughout this block request inspires no confidence in me that you know when to drop the stick, nor that you've learned anything at all. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:15, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thucydides411, you're absolutely correct. He did not post them, and neither did anyone else. Notice how Ivan is now regressing to condescension and the ol' "wasting everyone's time/time sink" slam, after what I imagine to have been an extensive double-checking of his posts to see if what I'm saying is true - "Is HT right? Did I actually not post those diffs?" After what I say checks out, he comes back here not to apologize and change his vote, but to drop a few insults and then promptly move the goalposts: "Okay well, maybe I didn't post the diffs....but I don't care about the diffs!" If I defend myself, I'm being disruptive and not taking responsibility for my behavior. If I ask for the diffs, I am told that they exist, and "No, you can't have them." I believe there's a word for this kind of tactic, but it escapes me at the moment. Either way, the moral of the story is if the powers that be want you gone, they WILL find a way, and WP:EXPLAINBLOCK is really just there for entertainment purposes only. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: You can't use the fact that someone speaks in their own defense as a reason to sanction them. You also can't block someone without providing evidence. If HT's recidivism since the end of the previous TBAN is so obvious, then it should be easy to find diffs to prove it. If you're not willing to accept basic principles like:
  1. The accused has the right to speak in their own defense.
  2. Evidence should be made public.
Then, in my personal opinion, you shouldn't be involved in discussions about sanctioning any editor. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere thanks to @Darouet and Darwinian Ape for your recent comments. You are expressing in a very calm, cogent manner, what I have been attempting to communicate for over a month, especially the analysis of the mob mentality/groupthink that DarwinianApe points out. The "oppose unblock" votes are essentially taken from the votes of others and then Frankensteined into a new edit, in a hodgepodge of Wiki terms from the exile-this-editor grab bag: "wikilawyer" (even if I don't use formal legal terms, abide by the letter of a policy over the spirit, misinterpret policy, or suggest interpretations should override the actual policies), "time sink" (don't defend yourself after being indef'd), "POV warrior" (your view doesn't match mine), and by far the worst: "you have been given diffs" (and no, we won't show you where). Darouet, thank you very much for changing your vote. Darwinian, I am very grateful for your honest and objective review of my appeal. Many editors have refused to read the related discussion and unblock request, yet feel it appropriate to a cast a vote regardless. Do you need any more information or have any questions for me in order to make you comfortable enough to cast a vote? Hidden Tempo (talk)

@RickinBaltimore - Yesterday I stated "If we see these diffs, and they show what MC claims they show, I will not only admit that I'm a terrible person/disruptive/activist editor (and any other awful things contained in the diffs), but I will shout it from the rooftops. Only after we see the diffs, though."[114] In MastCell's block, at the very end, you will see this: "...repeated instances despite prior blocks and topic ban." I have asked MastCell for diffs of these "repeated instances" dozens of times over the past month (or even just ONE diff), and several other editors and an admin (FT2) have requested them as well. MastCell STILL has not provided them. How could I possibly take responsibility for something if I don't even know what I'm taking responsibility for?

Not trying to soapbox with this analogy, but this is what they do in DPRK and used to do in the USSR. You go into a room, are forced to sign your confession for crimes (with the promise of leniency), but you aren't allowed to read the confession. This can't be how Jimbo envisioned as how he wants this process to work. Can it? I've said it numerous times. Show me the diffs of the "repeated instances" since my topic ban expired, and I WILL be the first to take responsibility for them, apologize for them, and explain to the community why I will not repeat these edits. But I can't do that until I SEE these edits. Is this edit really an unfair request? Is asking for these diffs really nothing more than merely more bludgeoning and wikilawyering? Please tell me so I can help resolve this. I respect and understand that you feel that I should never be unblocked, but I still feel that my concerns are being completely ignored and my appeal is being dismissed again and again as nothing more than a "time sink/"suck"/waste of the community's time. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three admins reviewed it actually, @MPants at work. FT2 (sorry for all the pings FT2) also reviewed it and also questioned the validity of a WP:CRYBLP claim, referring to the act of removing poorly-sourced (a Politico opinion article without the phrases "deficit of nationalism" OR "attacked his American critics,") which was stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice, and the subsequent reinstatement of the contested material without gaining consensus. Pinging @Darouet as this concerns them also. But let us not forget: the 3RR is not the primary reason for the block (in fact it was the last). I have already addressed my first ever 3RR, apologized, and assured MastCell that I would not repeat 3RR even in the case of WP:BLPREMOVE. We've moved on to the "repeated instances" of "Tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing; edit-warring" after my TBAN expired. And we still haven't received diffs for these repeated instances, by the way. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • HT, would you like to offer a short proposal of what you would be willing to do/accept before the discussion is closed? I did not !vote at the WP:AN discussion because I don't feel you are intentionally violating policies/guidelines. I also feel your discourse and debating skills need some improvement as you are frequently appearing to convey a message/point which may not be what you want to convey. I also see quite a bit of validity for a TBan and to a lesser extent an indef. ban which is why I am chosing not to !vote. Unintentional violation of policies/guidelines, miscommunication, your discourse -these are areas that only you, not Wikipedia, can deal with. Wikipedia is not a democracy, it is a project which has it's rules and the community decides what happens in the project, whether it seems fair or not. Think of the NCAA. They have their regulations and guidelines. Bottom line if any athlete doesn't "play by the rules" they don't get to play. It doesn't matter if the athlete didn't understand the rules, or Joe Smuck did the same thing and he wasn't sanctioned in the same way (each case is different), or that the reporter of the athlete's violation is biased because they are associated with a rival school. I think you get my point. You don't have "admit" that you are guilty of violating our policies and guidelines, you just need to "accept" that the community feels that you have and the steps you will take to prevent it from happening again, not just that you won't do it again. If you do want make a statement don't argue what you have already said. Just acknowledge that the community feels "X,Y,Z" and what steps you feel you can do to prevent what "the community feels" is necessary. For instance, disruptive editing. If you need help with this, post it on your talk page, and you will receive some suggestions and pay particular attention to those who disagreed with your defense. No matter the outcome of this, I did enjoy editing with you - we agreed some times, disagreed at others but I feel we both respect each others opinions. Best of Luck, CBS527Talk 13:42, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I don't really know if there's anything else to add at this point. I understand the rules, as I've been around for a while, but disagree with those who say I broke them (after my TBAN, that is). My unblock request was based off a thorough review of WP:TEND, WP:DISRUPT and WP:BLPREMOVE, and I provided diffs showing why I have been in compliance with the policies since my TBAN, with the exception of the 3RR. Of course I have agreed not to repeat the editing that MastCell/the community says is a problem, but that seems a little hollow given that we haven't seen these edits he's talking about. What seems more practical is to pledge to do a better job of handling content disputes/BLPVIO issues so that my editing won't be viewed as tendentious/disruptive, which I did, but that wasn't enough for SpacemanSpiff and others. They feel that the project needs to be protected from my editing at Jean Lake, New England Patriots, and Tony Vinciquerra. In regards to the indef TBAN with no right to appeal, I have said that editors who speak like this are not appropriate targets for a TBAN. Others disagree, and I've done all I can to convince them otherwise. Just ready for this to be over, now. Hidden Tempo (talk) 19:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how the discussion turns out, I'm done with this project based on how you've been treated. A project where people are arguing that concepts of fairness don't apply, where people say evidence has been provided but then say they don't care about evidence when it's pointed out that there has been no evidence. A project where a majority of editors see no problem with this unwarranted ban. A project which has been infected by the US's nuttiness in politics, where tendentious POV-pushers of one persuasion are completely acceptable unless they go seriously off the deep end but the mighty banhammer falls on those with a different political opinion, even when they've amended their behaviour, concepts of fairness be damned. This project isn't for me, it looks like it's not for you either. There are less stressful ways of contributing to society, with far nicer, fairer, saner people. Cjhard (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MjolnirPants, you certainly are quite vested in the discussion to make sure you get your way, for an uninvolved editor. Now you're going as far as to falsely claim (as the diffs show to anyone who clicks on them) that my last comment was "full of falsehoods and wikilawyering," while canvassing for admins who you're hoping might agree with you, such as Ritchie333, Oshwah, NeilN, and even a few who are already following the discussion quite closely, such as Bishonen and Boing! said Zebedee. Personally, I like to spend my Saturdays watching college football and doing some reading, but hey, it's your free time. If you prefer to spend it pleading with admins to TBAN a fellow Wikipedian instead of editing AP2 articles, then I can't stop you.

That being said, I have already called for the thread to be closed. I posted the facts, pointed out for the nth time that zero diffs and no evidence was ever given for "repeated instances" of "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing; edit-warring" after my topic ban. Voters either clicked on the diffs, or they didn't (many did not, which was apparent from their "reasoning"). It was a long discussion, and it has run its course. Many pointed out that we never got any diffs/evidence of the post-TBAN "repeated instances", and many claimed we did (no diffs from the latter crew). Unfortunately, the loudest people in the room often get the most attention. It's been determined that the encyclopedia must be protected from my tendentious and disruptive edits: [115].

One of my favorite quotes of all time comes from Noam Chomsky, and it has never been more relevant: "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum." Thanks for allowing the debate, everyone. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Community banned

I have just closed the thread at AN. [116]. The summary i have posted is:

Hidden Tempo (talk · contribs) is hereby indefinitely community site-banned from the English Wikipedia.

  1. There is a numerical consensus to continue the block of Hidden Tempo. Also the arguments from the "oppose unblock" camp are more convincing, which document a catalog of disruptive editing, including but not limited to FUD type-arguments, sock-puppetry, wiki-lawyering, BLP violations, POV-pushing and partisanship, edit-warring, ad-hominem attacks, civility issues, bludgeoning and time-sink behavior, and WP:NOTTHEM appeal strategies. Taken as a whole this paints a picture of considerable disruption. The "support unblock" arguments are weaker, and consist of arguments that include WP:ROPE type arguments (which seem misplaced considering the time-sink behavior) and "time-served" arguments (which ignores WP:NOTPUNISHMENT), as well as the original block not being properly explained (incorrect, but also irrelevant when considering disruption). Therefore, according to the terms of WP:CBAN (which states Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community"), the indefinite block is to be converted to a community ban.
  2. Should Hidden Tempo be unbanned and unblocked, there is definite consensus for this to be accompanied by the restriction originally suggested by Bishonen : an indefinite topic ban from post-1932 American politics, broadly construed, with an appeal on WP:AN or WP:ANI allowed no sooner than a year from being unblocked.

There is much support (but not a consensus) that Hidden Tempo could become a useful editor outside of the AP area. With this in mind I have set the following conditions for appeal:

  1. Wait one month, without sockpuppetry or block evasion.
  2. Don't create any extraordinary reasons for anyone to to object to a return.
  3. Promise to avoid the behavior that led to the ban. Demonstrate this in your appeal.
  4. Ask a friendly editor to copy the appeal from your talkpage (if tp access is continued) to WP:AN. Consensus will be reached on whether to unban/unblock you.
  5. Upon becoming unblocked you will still be subject to the topic ban described above, for a minimum of 12 months.

Note: a condition of your appeal is that it must include a promise, and also demonstrate, that you can avoid behavior that led to your ban.

@Boing! said Zebedee:: could you please close the unblock request to reflect this. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC) Withdrawn. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE, that close has been reverted on the grounds that the closer is not an admin. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GreenMeansGo, RickinBaltimore, and Primefac - while I'm glad to see that a discussion regarding a Wikipedian's fate isn't being allowed to stand in anyone's way of enjoying a few yucks at my expense, nobody is forcing anyone to continue commenting on the discussion. Interestingly, those who have repeatedly complained about the "time sink" nature of the unblock appeal process, also volunteer to spend their time endlessly putting in their two (2^13?) cents and arguing with other editors rather than actually, you know, improving articles. The appeal never needed to take this long or undergo this many metamorphoses. Either an indefinite block is necessary to protect the project from my disruptive post-TBAN editing at Jean Lake[117], Dave Gettleman[118], Donna Brazile[119], and James Comey[120], or it is not.

Either the closing administrator will be able to provide one or more diffs of MastCell providing evidence of the reasons given for the indef block ("repeated instances" of "Tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing") that many claim exists (but cannot/will not prove their existence with a diff), or the admin will not be able to do so and thereby tacitly confirm that MastCell did not provide this evidence (regardless of the closing admin's decision). All this other stuff about "Well he has this/that in his past..." and "But he's raised concerns about MastCell's objectivity in the context of his AP2 editing..." serves only to distract from the primary goal of the unblock request. The pre/mid-TBAN infractions are only relevant in the context of the reasons given for the unblock. MastCell never claimed to re-issue a retroactive sanction for the pre/mid-TBAN infractions - rather that they factored into the decision, as a result of the claimed "repeated instances" of the infractions AFTER the TBAN. Once the facts are distilled to their simplest form, all the rants, ravings, and "wikilawyering" (far and away the most overused and incorrectly cited WP term, by the way)/aspersions/bludgeoning nonsense by various editors are mere detours in the road to closing the appeal as "necessary" or "not necessary" to protect the encyclopedia. Hidden Tempo (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not totally sure why I'm being lumped in with such an illustrious group of trouble makers as those two, but in case you're in the mood for some good advise, he's some you might take into consideration. You can try to wikilawyer the thing to death even more than it already has been, and probably likely eventually lose talk page access if you ping enough people enough times. Alternatively, you could probably mosey over to a place like Simple English, Wikiquote, or Commons, work constructively with others for a while, and show that your primary concern here is making more knowledge more free for more people, and that you're willing to do that in whatever way you can despite the community. Then you can come back in a few months, show the community what you've been up to, and exactly how wrong they were, and do so by your actions, not by your words. Feel free to ping me when that day comes. I'd be more than happy to lead the charge in your favor. GMGtalk 16:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've already shown that my goal here is to improve articles in a collaborative manner, and guess what? I showed it by using diffs. That's the benefit of telling the truth and having the integrity to get it right rather than be right, and admit fault when one is wrong. I don't choose a conclusion within a 10-15 minute period[121][122] and then work backwards from that conclusion, trying to justify it with vagueries, non-sequiturs and other tools of obfuscation to distract from the lack of evidence/diffs. I traffic in facts, and in this forum, diffs. Not claims of behavior, allegations of editing patterns, and supposed "repeated instances" of edits - actual diffs. Unfortunately, the opposing strategy often proves more effective - GoldenRing couldn't find any diffs of MastCell giving the appropriate evidence/diffs, and chose not to read all the background (citing TL;DR, and I don't blame him honestly), due to the endless discussion that distracted from the central issues, as well as repeated inappropriate citations of popular go-to essays like WP:WL and WP:BLUDGEON. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Floquenbeam, as you suggested that the AN discussion regarding an indef for my inaugural 3RR vio was "just to confirm what everyone already knew - that the block was legit, that HT hasn't come up with a legitimate unblock request after 1+ months," I'm curious where the disagreement is with your admin colleague. Ivanvector described my block as "a very elegant unblock request appearing to explain the reasons for the block and how they would avoid those behaviours if unblocked" and that "Hidden Tempo has addressed the issues leading to the block much more rationally than the vast majority of unblock requests I've ever seen and so I trust they understand why they were blocked". Inexplicably, he still felt the project needed protection from my editing despite my exceptional unblock request. However, I'm curious as to how you feel I could improve on my unblock request. I'm assuming you've read it? Perhaps I can use your suggestions to improve it if the result doesn't go my way. Hidden Tempo (talk) 03:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion. Don't add a special section to the end of the unblock request dedicated to criticizing the blocking admin. ~Awilley (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lol yeah that didn't work out so well, did it? I didn't think that the WP:GAB section about "explain why it was wrong to block you" meant to exclude administrator involvement/biases. In any case, unless I misunderstood, it looks like Bishonen just overrode a unanimous consensus of six oppose site ban !votes, which included two administrators. So it sounds like I won't have another opportunity to write another unblock request, as I don't think I've ever seen an administrator have the gall to publicly dissent from Bishonen. Hidden Tempo (talk) 14:54, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So I'll do you a favor by adding a section, making your critique of Bishonen not the final section here. Yes, you misunderstood--the point of the close is rather that yes, "Editors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered "banned by the Wikipedia community". So no, Bishonen did not override anything, nor did the others, including me--and you can try and throw mud on Bishonen, and pretend she's some kind of superadministrator for whom all other tremble, but that's just bologna. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Unanimous consensus"? ~Awilley (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By my count, yes. Six oppose site ban !votes to zero support site ban !votes, before the closure[123]. I got C's in Calculus, but I don't think I made a math error on this one, certainly not one egregious enough to warrant accusations of incompetence. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't know what to say. I can't fathom how you can look at that section and not notice any of the 7 other users arguing for some degree of community-imposed site ban. Perhaps you only read the bolded text? I was actually in the middle of writing an argument at User_talk:Primefac to point out the drama-reducing advantages of resolving the issue of eventual unblocking at a lower level, but I can no longer justify spending the time to finish it. ~Awilley (talk) 05:25, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those aren't !votes. That's general discussion. Anyway, please do whatever you feel is the right thing to do. Several other unblock voters also changed their !votes for miniscule reasons unrelated to the block earlier in the discussion. Drmies changed his vote to "leave him blocked" after he was reminded that I asked for oversight scrutiny of Bishonen's sanction history back in March or May or something. Ivanvector changed his !vote when he couldn't find the diffs of MastCell providing the diffs showing my "repeated instances" of blockable editing post-TBAN, angrily declaring that he "doesn't care" about evidence and he's not going to "hold my hand." So if you feel that I cannot be a productive editor in AP2 (or anywhere else) because I don't feel general musings should count toward consensus, then that's your prerogative. I'm just waiting to see if Primelac's team includes diffs of MastCell providing evidence of the post-TBAN problematic editing that he says occurred when announcing their decision. Those diffs have become the Holy Grail at this point. Hidden Tempo (talk) 12:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think I fully understand what happened there - two administrators and four regular editors were !voting for no reason? I mean, it's academic because it seems my fate is now in the hands of Primelac and a few others, but the closure seemed odd and premature. Just to clarify though, my observation wasn't meant as a critique of Bishonen. I was just laying out the facts. If she is not as powerful as you say, then I will take you at your word, although that also was not meant as criticism. Hidden Tempo (talk) 18:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac, I was wondering if you might be able to please provide a diff of MastCell pointing to specific examples of the "repeated instances" of problematic editing after my TBAN expired? He made a dozen or so edits regarding the block after issuing it, but nobody (including myself) was able to find a single instance of him providing an example/diff of these "repeated instances." If I had this evidence/diff, I would be able to much more effectively address the concerns of the community regarding the problematic editing at Jean Lake, New England Patriots, and other articles outside of the AP2 topic area. Thank you. Hidden Tempo (talk) 13:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HT, it's probably not appropriate for Primefac to be commenting on the discussion while in the process of closing it. CBS527Talk 14:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They've already closed it. I'm rather disappointed in the closers rationales myself. Then again, I thought this was a shit show all the way back at that ANI. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) You'd have to ask MastCell for those diffs. However, I fail to see the relevance, as you are the only person either here or at AN who have mentioned those pages. Primefac (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? I already asked MastCell for the diffs numerous times, and he never provided them. We were all meant to take him at his word that the diffs exist and the problematic editing for which I was blocked did in fact occur. You and your team didn't actually review the editing in question? Just went by whoever shouted the loudest, and took them at their word that what the mob was saying was true? How could I possibly be expected to formulate an unblock request next year if I'm being denied the opportunity to look inward and examine my problematic editing? In your closing statement on the AN board, you stated: "That appeal should demonstrate that he understands the reasons for the block, and has a plan to avoid repeating them." I really don't think it's an unfair request to ask to SEE the reasons behind my block in order to understand them, and show my plan to avoid repeating the edits. Is it?

The relevance of the edits at Jean Lake and others is because the whole point of a block is to protect the project from my editing. If the problematic editing only occurred within one topic area, then a topic ban is the appropriate sanction, not a block. If a block is necessary, it should have been determined (and evidence given), that my problematic editing extends to other areas of the project. And several editors (and at least two admins) did state that they see no problematic editing outside of AP2, but chose not to link to those pages specifically. Hidden Tempo (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a bit of advice, your current argument sounds like you're trying to scale the block back to a topic ban at this point in time (I'm not saying that is what you're doing, but I don't think someone interpreting it that way would be making a poor interpretation). One, I don't think that is going to work, and two, it might lead to someone removing your talk page access. At the moment I think it's more worth your time to let this go. Save your good editing topic arguments for when you can actually appeal the block. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:38, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but that's not at all what I'm trying to do. I already made the argument, quite well in my opinion, that I should never have been blocked or topic banned. The mob didn't accept my argument, and vaguely pointed to the existence of diffs as adequate reason for keeping me blocked. So now I'm blocked for 6 months minimum. Now what I'm asking for is these diffs that everyone says exists, but cannot or will not provide, so that I may take a deep, introspective look at my problematic editing (within and outside of the AP2 area), so that I may adjust my editing style and craft a successful unblock request that convinces the community that I am a collaborative editor, since this wasn't enough to do that. Hidden Tempo (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hidden_Tempo&oldid=802656385"