User talk:Hidden Tempo

Reply

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

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

Sorry

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

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

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

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

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

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

Missing articles

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

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

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

Talk:James_O'Keefe#RfC:_Foval_busing_comment

Kindly tone it down, Hidden Tempo. I don't know if you are purposely trying to get under other editors' skin, or if it's a side effect; either way, it's disruptive. Thank you! Drmies (talk) 21:46, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Drmies. Thanks for the heads up, I think I made my position pretty clear so I'm fine with dropping the stick. As an uninvolved admin, would you consider closing our RfC? If you'd rather not that's fine too, of course. Also, I am definitely not trying to get anyone's skin on purpose, but something about my writing style must irritate folks as I seem to keep getting attacked and find myself fielding aspersions out of nowhere. I try to always remain civil and AGF, but if you have any recommendations for encouraging the same conduct from others, I'd be more than open to them. Hidden Tempo (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Drmies, this is a perfect example (and I apologize if my ping is an annoyance to you, please feel free to direct me to another administrator for this issue. I am having what was formerly a productive conversation about contentious material with MelanieN, and another editor who makes a point of responding to nearly every edit I make on political articles makes the following unconstructive and offensive edits in response to my reply to MelanieN: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. So in this instance, I think it's pretty safe to say that the user is attempting to bait me into his desire for a battleground situation. How would I respond to his incorrect (and uncivil) assessment of my response to MelanieN, in addition to his aspersions that he's casting? Do I simply ignore? It doesn't seem serious enough to warrant an ANI/AE complaint, but also it's clear that he has no intention of ceasing his M.O. when interacting with me. Any advice is greatly appreciated, here. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Uh, wha?? This is suppose to be an "offensive edit"? Come on! Or This? How is that offensive - it's textbook example of addressing content, not the editor. Or, for example with respect to this. The source *does indeed* say the opposite of what you claim it says... so how is that suppose to be my fault? There's no incivility here, nor am I attempting to "bait" you into anything. You're just misrepresenting sources, straight up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:16, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, please do not bring false accusations and false claims about the discussion between myself about MelanieN to my talk page. I have asked you several times to be civil and assume good faith, which you have ignored every time thus far. If you cannot carry yourself with respect and integrity, I would prefer that you do not edit my talk page. Thank you. Hidden Tempo (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I am civil. I am civilly pointing out that 1) the sources you provide say the opposite of what you claim they say, 2) your accusations of me making "offensive edits" backed by diffs such as this are completely specious and 3) I might as well add that comments such as "if you cannot carry yourself with respect and integrity" are themselves personal attacks (I dunno, is misrepresenting sources "carrying oneself with respect and integrity"?) And there's a very simple reason why I'm here on your talk page - you're talking about me behind my back and agitating for admin intervention (also "carrying oneself with respect and integrity"). So if you don't want me making comments, don't talk about me. Regardless, I've said my piece.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:42, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

You are the least civil editor I've ran into on the project. By far. I directly quoted the headlines of the sources, and didn't "claim" anything. I'm not going to ping you every time that I ask an admin for advice on how to handle disruptive and battleground editors, just a heads up. Kindly strike your threats about returning to my talk page, strike your false claims in both of your edits, and I would also appreciate you striking your false claims about my making "false claims" in the aforementioned discussion. Nobody's yet stopped you from pushing your POV all over Wikipedia (for the last 12 years), and I'm not exactly sure why, but you're not going to do it on my talk page. Hidden Tempo (talk) 06:59, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but you must not have ran into a lot of abusive editors then. I've been called every name under the sun. There's plenty of criticism of Marek, but a lot of it has come from now-community banned, topic-banned, and Checkuser-exposed editors, so that's not worth much. I assume that Marek will stay off your page, but you can't expect such claims as you made to go unchallenged, here or elsewhere. I looked at this edit--I'm not about to go through Marek's editing history, since I find his choice of subject matter to be quite tedious, but I don't see anything in there that somehow violates one of our policies on civility. You are, of course, welcome to bring it to ANI and see if it's worth administrative intervention, but I don't think, speaking from experience, that it will get anywhere. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• Hidden Tempo, since you're asking for tips (specifically from admins) about how to encourage civility from others, I'll try. Are you saying that repeatedly asking experienced editors to "review" some of our best-known policies and guidelines (WP:CIV, WP:AGF) is not intended to annoy them?[7][8] That you think people will warm to advice like "If you find it difficult to follow these guidelines when interacting with other editors, I suggest you spend your Saturday doing something else. Calm down, enjoy the day, and help us improve the encyclopedia instead of attacking those with whom you disagree."?[9] That you expected that person to think "What a nice guy, he cares about me having a good weekend"? Before you automatically respond "But what about X, he said Y! What about Z!", please try to imagine yourself at the receiving end of so much condescension and hauteur. As for the long line of diffs you offer above to show Volunteer Marek being unconstructive and offensive, as far as I can see they discuss your sources, not you, and not in a rude way. That's how those articles develop, through discussing sources. I don't understand why you take umbrage at that sort of thing, to the point of asking VM to "strike" this, that and the other. (I'm sorry, but that sort of thing does you no favors; it always sounds a little ridiculous.) And now apparently you think telling someone they don't carry themselves with respect and dignity is a way to "encourage" them to be civil and to AGF (which is what you were asking Drmies for advice about). Yes, I do believe something about your writing style irritates folks. I hope you will be open to these hints. Bishonen | talk 08:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC).

James Comey

The WP:NPOV/N discussion is completely dead at this point; I'm not familiar with WP:DRN but it seems appropriate. I'm not 100% clear if the dispute is about the 2016 events, or just the 2017 events. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Lol I agree, it's gotten completely out of control. The dispute is in regards to the letter to congress regarding new Clinton emails from Wiener's laptop, in October 2016. I just filed a dispute resolution request, and will template everyone once I have the link to the discussion. It's my first one as well, so it should be a wild ride haha. I just want to keep things cool and have the discussion focused on the content. WP:V and WP:RS are really clear, so I don't think it should be that hard to find consensus and get a good compromise. Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Please stop stalking my edits

[10]. It's pretty transparent what you're doing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't even know that it was you made that POV edit, Volunteer. I stumbled across it after noticing your edit war. Anyway, I banned you from making uncivil edits on my talk page. Casting aspersions count, so please, for the second time, stay off my talk page if you are unable to remain civil. Hidden Tempo (talk) 15:48, 26 July 2017 (UTC)