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)

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)

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)

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)

No worries, I was just curious. I have no issue with where it is. PackMecEng (talk) 02:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Blocked

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)

First unblock request

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)

}}

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

•  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 Shih^Talk 16:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

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)

UTRS unblock request (cancelled)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Revised/fresh unblock request

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=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[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Comey&diff=793024420&oldid=793023478]. 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[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Blatant_BLP_Violations_Being_Ignored], the NPOV noticeboard[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_66#Who_is_to_blame_for_the_defeat_of_Hillary_Clinton_in_the_2016_election.3F], the OR noticeboard[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&oldid=791906334#SYNTH_issue][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Stephen_Miller.2FJim_Acosta_debate], 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).[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sean_Spicer&diff=791682166&oldid=791682053][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sean_Spicer&diff=791682627&oldid=791682166] 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[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Spicer&diff=791663458&oldid=791662609] after it was pointed out to me by Neutrality[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sean_Spicer&diff=791661460&oldid=791659556]. 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[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sean_Spicer&diff=791661460&oldid=791659556], 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 [[WP:TEND|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 (political advisor)|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[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=752671246], 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/<s>tendentious</s>/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. [[User:Hidden Tempo|Hidden Tempo]] ([[User talk:Hidden Tempo#top|talk]]) 04:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=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[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Comey&diff=793024420&oldid=793023478]. 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[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Blatant_BLP_Violations_Being_Ignored], the NPOV noticeboard[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_66#Who_is_to_blame_for_the_defeat_of_Hillary_Clinton_in_the_2016_election.3F], the OR noticeboard[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&oldid=791906334#SYNTH_issue][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Stephen_Miller.2FJim_Acosta_debate], 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).[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sean_Spicer&diff=791682166&oldid=791682053][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sean_Spicer&diff=791682627&oldid=791682166] 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[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Spicer&diff=791663458&oldid=791662609] after it was pointed out to me by Neutrality[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sean_Spicer&diff=791661460&oldid=791659556]. 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[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sean_Spicer&diff=791661460&oldid=791659556], 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 [[WP:TEND|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 (political advisor)|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[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=752671246], 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/<s>tendentious</s>/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. [[User:Hidden Tempo|Hidden Tempo]] ([[User talk:Hidden Tempo#top|talk]]) 04:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=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[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:James_Comey&diff=793024420&oldid=793023478]. 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[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Blatant_BLP_Violations_Being_Ignored], the NPOV noticeboard[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_66#Who_is_to_blame_for_the_defeat_of_Hillary_Clinton_in_the_2016_election.3F], the OR noticeboard[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard&oldid=791906334#SYNTH_issue][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Stephen_Miller.2FJim_Acosta_debate], 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).[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sean_Spicer&diff=791682166&oldid=791682053][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sean_Spicer&diff=791682627&oldid=791682166] 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[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sean_Spicer&diff=791663458&oldid=791662609] after it was pointed out to me by Neutrality[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sean_Spicer&diff=791661460&oldid=791659556]. 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[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sean_Spicer&diff=791661460&oldid=791659556], 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 [[WP:TEND|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 (political advisor)|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[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=752671246], 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/<s>tendentious</s>/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. [[User:Hidden Tempo|Hidden Tempo]] ([[User talk:Hidden Tempo#top|talk]]) 04:58, 15 August 2017 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Supplemental material/Discussion related to blocking administrator's editing history

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) I'm not sure what you're asking a bureaucrat to do here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 06:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC) 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) 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) I find this to be a remarkably dishonest summary of my editing, but if you think that this sort of thing will help you get unblocked, then go for it, I guess. MastCell Talk 00:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC) 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) 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) @Hidden Tempo: As others have stated, you probably need to submit a case to ArbCom if you want to pursue a complaint against an admin's behavior. Your rationale and evidence seem sufficient for the committee to at least agree to hear the case. See a currently-open case for reference and possible inspiration: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Arthur Rubin and WP:ADMINACCT. Be aware that your own behavior will be scrutinized as well (but reading your unblock request, I guess you're willing to stand up to scrutiny). — JFG talk 06:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Continued discussion of unblock request

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)

• 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)

(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)

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)

@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 Shih^Talk 22:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

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)

(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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

(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)

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)

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)

• @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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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. Neutrality^talk 18:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Review of block

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

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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)

@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)

@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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

(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)

@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)

@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)

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)

• 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)

  @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)

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)

Offer to convert the block to a topic ban

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 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).

• Bish, I appreciate your patience and your generosity. Hidden Tempo, I think this is a good offer. Drmies (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• I second this idea. HT, I hope you consider this seriously. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• I think HT has previously rejected the idea of this proposal in UTRS appeal #18968, but indicated willingness to accept if that is the only choice. Alex Shih^Talk 13:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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)

• 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, CBS527^Talk 12:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
• 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)

• 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)