Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:14, 9 August 2017

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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages 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

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

Request 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 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. 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.

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.

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 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 ], who I have had prior productive collaboration with on pages such as ] and ]. In fact, the only time a ] emerges is when I am personally attacked<strike>, 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.</strike> *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. <br> 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 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. 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. <br>MastCell has stated that I have had "numerous sanctions" for previous behavior. I have been sanctioned twice: a 6-month topic ban for soapboxing and stating that "Chelsea Clinton Foundation funds to pay for her wedding," which was sourced to two RS, 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. 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. ] (]) 02:09, 8 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 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 ], who I have had prior productive collaboration with on pages such as ] and ]. In fact, the only time a ] emerges is when I am personally attacked<strike>, 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.</strike> *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. <br> 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 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. 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. <br>MastCell has stated that I have had "numerous sanctions" for previous behavior. I have been sanctioned twice: a 6-month topic ban for soapboxing and stating that "Chelsea Clinton Foundation funds to pay for her wedding," which was sourced to two RS, 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. 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. ] (]) 02:09, 8 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 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 ], who I have had prior productive collaboration with on pages such as ] and ]. In fact, the only time a ] emerges is when I am personally attacked<strike>, 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.</strike> *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. <br> 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 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. 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. <br>MastCell has stated that I have had "numerous sanctions" for previous behavior. I have been sanctioned twice: a 6-month topic ban for soapboxing and stating that "Chelsea Clinton Foundation funds to pay for her wedding," which was sourced to two RS, 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. 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. ] (]) 02:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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.

• 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  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 Misplaced Pages 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.'". Misplaced Pages 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  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? 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. 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, 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, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 along with some other negative material, and spearheaded efforts to get Donald Trump's Access Hollywood videotape into his BLP lead during the campaign 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?) 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 and subsequent double reversions by another editor 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, 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, 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 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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Hidden Tempo/Archive. Basically, Hidden Tempo was topic-banned from American politics under the relevant ArbCom sanctions (, 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  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. 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 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? What about self-reverting and apologizing, after another user (Neutrality) pointed out that I mistakenly violated 1RR, and subsequently thanked for our collaboration and courtesy by an administrator during the discussion? 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: 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)

A barnstar for you!

		The Barnstar of Integrity
		I'm taking my own advice and thanking you for your commitment to upholding Misplaced Pages's policy that encyclopedic content on Misplaced Pages 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)

• Requests for unblock