Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:54, 20 October 2014

The Signpost: 15 October 2012

• Op-ed: AdminCom: A proposal for changing the way we select admins

• In the media: Misplaced Pages's language nerds hit the front page

• Featured content: Second star to the left

• News and notes: Chapters ask for big bucks

• Technology report: Wikidata is a go: well, almost

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Chemicals

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

October 2014

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

Request reason:

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

Accept reason:

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

• Do you agree not to edit Gamaliel's page for the duration of this block? That is, no earlier than 01:03 GMT 21 Oct 2014 (if I got the time conversion right?--v/r - TP 03:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm asking to be unblocked because the block was in violation of policy. I want that addressed on its merits, not evaded. Andyvphil (talk) 04:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Given my previous disagreements with Andyvphil regarding his discussion style, I don't enjoy agreeing with him on this, but he's right. The block is bad on its face, and needs reverted. After that, a discussion thread can be opened at the appropriate noticeboard regarding Gamaliel's issues with things Andyvphil has posted. LHM 04:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Gamaliel finally unblocked at the very moment I was typing the above post. While that is a positive development, the unblock happened with an edit summary of "harass away", and was followed by a blanking and protection of Gamaliel's talkpage, and a further refusal of my request for diffs regarding the serious accusations leveled at Andyvphil. LHM 04:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. How do you suggest I proceed so as to get access to the hidden text, so that I may properly contest that action? Andyvphil (talk) 04:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you are the person who made the post that was revdel'd, I think you should probably just ask an admin to tell you what the content was. At that point, you could either ask Gamaliel why it was revdel'd, if you're still unsure, or take it to the appropriate noticeboard. If you do so, I would strongly encourage you to mollify your strident tone as much as possible. I know you feel wronged--and have reason to feel that way, given the WP:INVOLVED block that was levied against you--but taking such a tone sometimes makes it difficult to get to any points you are trying to make in a given discussion. Regards, LHM 04:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think my tone above was remarkably polite, under the circumstances. Are you an administrator? I can't say I know any that I would want to put the request to, and you are already somewhat familiar with the issue. Andyvphil (talk) 04:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not, nor do I particularly wish to be. Perhaps @TParis: could assist you? LHM 05:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, he is the obvious choice. Thanks again. Since you pinged him, I'll just wait here.

@Tparis: I believe the appropriate word is, "please".Andyvphil (talk) 05:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Your diff has been emailed to you.--v/r - TP 05:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

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

removal from public archives

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

I have no objection to any complaint or review of my actions, but such a review should not serve as another soapbox to discuss negative, evidence-free theories about a living individual, and I fear that providing you with those offensive comments would lead to this, so I must decline your polite request.

Since we're being polite and not in the heat of an argument or an editing conflict, I will ask you to reconsider the things you have said about the subject of the article. You have repeatedly suggested that a prominent and successful academic of color was a failure as an academic and only succeeded as a result of affirmative action, despite ample evidence of his achievments in his field. This is incredibly offensive and racist, even if you do not mean it to be, and I find it particularly offensive personally as an academic who is a racial minority myself. Gamaliel (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 16:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"You have repeatedly suggested that a prominent and successful academic of color was a failure as an academic and only succeeded as a result of affirmative action..."

No, I have not. He washed out at UTA, but succeeded in getting degrees at Harvard (with honors) and Columbia, and I have not suggested otherwise. Nor have I ever said that he succeeded "only" as a result of affirmative action. I have inquired of the new editors at NGT if they have seen evidence of material on help that Tyson was given because of his race that the group of editors previously in control of the page might have thought inappropriate to mention, as they had in the case of Tyson being kicked out of the UTA PhD program. If the material exists but has been, like the UTA failure, suppressed or minimized, it will be entirely appropriate to evaluate whether the judgement of the previously resident group of editors should be overruled.

This correction to your characterization of what I said is, I believe, similar to what I said in response to someone else who mischaracterized what I had written, and which was part of what you deleted. That I can reproduce similar material at will is obvious, and makes your claim that supplying me with the text you deleted will somehow empower me to repeat sentiments you find offensive, in a way that I would otherwise be unable to, obviously absurd.

The mischaracterization of what I had written was preceeded by the expression, "Bullshit!" Part of what you deleted was my response, not in kind, listing various incivilities to which I had been subjected in the course of this discussion, including your use of the exact same term in a revert edit comment. It was particularly inappropriate of you to removed this.

Inasmuch as your refusal does not serve your stated purpose, I renew my request for access to the deleted text. Andyvphil (talk) 04:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I have reviewed your deleted comments again and I believe you are not accurately or not completely summarizing them here. Nor do I feel you grasp the substance of my comments to you given that you have largely focused on the single word "only". It's immaterial whether you assert that someone only succeeded because of an racist assumption unsupported by evidence, or in part because of a racist assumption unsupported by evidence. Gamaliel (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm certainly not claiming to "accurately completely summariz" comments I cannot examine. The observation that, if Tyson benefited from assistance because of his race, that certain editors may have decided to suppress mention of that fact is not a "racist assertion", and the clearly overboard insertion of "only" in your mal-description of my words is something you are responsible for. You are WP:INVOLVED. I suggest you seek a second opinion. Andyvphil (talk) 05:33, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

If you make an assertion about someone with no evidence to back that assertion up beyond the color of that person's skin, then that is, by definition, racist. If you wish to expound further on this matter, find somewhere else to do so besides my talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

That is of course nonsense unless you exclude assertions about probability from the category "assertions". For example, if I assert someone is more likely to carry the gene for sickle cell anemia with no evidence other than the color of his skin that is a true fact, and truths are by definition not racist. Falsehood is the part of the definition of racism that you are omitting.

You're claim that I repeatedly made a "racist assertion" implies that you can supply an actual racist quote from my writings that one hiding revert will not have deleted. Please do so.

As to communicating with you on your talk page, you have an obligation to be responsive in relation to inquiries about your admin actions. I can't offhand supply the shortcut to the relevant paragraph , though I read it recently, but I assume you know which one it is. Something about ACCOUNTABILITY, maybe? Andyvphil (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not have the obligation to repeatedly engage with someone who insists on making blanket racist assertions. I will ask you a second time, politely, to drop it because I find your comments personally offensive, for reasons I have already explained to you and you choose to ignore, and in violation of Misplaced Pages policies. I will also ask you a second time, politely, to take this conversation elsewhere. The third time I have to do either one in regards to my talk page will be the last, and will not be polite, and may involve blocking and/or profanity in multiple languages. In case you do not get the hint, I am also archiving this conversation. Gamaliel (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

]]

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

[[This was reverted with the comment: "What part of 'go away' do you not understand?" ]]

]]

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

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

Some relevant policy, much of it violated:

Misplaced Pages:Administrators WP:Administrators

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

Administrator conduct

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

Accountability

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

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

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

...

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

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand

Communication

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

Here's a list

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

You have way too much time on your hands if you have time for this kind of pathetic attempted snark. I have three candidates. What's yours? Andyvphil (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Reminder

Protection will expire on The Federalist (website) shortly. Just to make it very clear, this is a third reminder of discretionary sanctions on that page. You have been previous warned twice about DS: Please think again about returning to edit warring controvesrial BLP content into that page when protection expires. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)