Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Obsidi (talk | contribs) at 22:07, 21 October 2014 (→Recent ANI). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

I'm happy to share. Of my last 1000 edits, I'm most proud of: Molly Crabapple (major rewrite); Plaincourault Chapel (new article), Yamaha NS-10 (Good Article review); Cebrennus rechenbergi (major rewrite, DYK review); Paul Conrad (rewrite and GA nom); Cannabis and time perception (new article); Frances Ames (new article); The Exaltation of the Flower (new article); Chain Reaction (sculpture) (rewrite, still working on it); List of City of Santa Monica Designated Historic Landmarks (completed major update); Pay Any Price: Greed, Power, and Endless War (new article). OK, now you? Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

My, you are one busy Wikipedian. All that and a sustained effort to edit war all mention of Tyson's failings out of Misplaced Pages, too. In my case I would think 1000 mainspace edits might take me back to 2008, but I am most recently proud of inserting the first hint of fairness to Darren Wilson into the "Shooting of Michael Brown" article, mentioning the eyewitness inadvertently heard describing Brown charging Wilson. Stuck on the page, too, as the resident editors, though mostly with biases different than mine, are not so deeply engaged in denying reality as the Tyson claque. Andyvphil (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Because there are only so many hours in a day, I'm not as familiar with Darren Wilson and Michael Brown as you are. Could you tell me what was unfair about it before you modified the article? You don't have to give me an essay or anything, but I am genuinely curious about the topic and how you think you improved it. Viriditas (talk) 23:29, 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)

Thanks for the heads-up. I am not aware of any rightfully controversial "BLP content" that has ever been on that page. Just a suggestion: Please reconsider expressing your conspiracy theories about the Heartland Institute, etc. at possibly inappropriate moments. It makes you come off as a crank. Andyvphil (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That's ironic, since mainstream sources consider Heartland to be the leading purveyor of climate change denial conspiracy theories. Connecting them to the Federalist, their work with the Discovery Institute, and their history of attacking scientists who promote climate change science (like Tyson explicitly did on the Cosmos television series this year) is neither a conspiracy nor a theory, it's what they do professionally and have been doing since they were formed as an institute. Do you need reliable sources or are you just trolling? You can start by familiarizing yourself with Merchants of Doubt and Doubt Is Their Product. Their attack on Tyson follows this pattern to the letter. Since they can't directly challenge climate change science (and since Discovery can't directly challenge evolution) they are forced to attack the man in an attempt to indirectly question his credentials. This amounts to, "You can't trust Tyson on evolution or climate change, after all, he misquoted Bush." They have actually said this in their attacks. And, it is of little surprise to anyone that Discovery's Teach the Controversy strategy is identical to Heartland's. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You persist in shooting the messenger. They are right that you can't trust Tyson on any subject of political valency because he is an uncritical consumer and fabricator of factoids that match his preconceptions. If Sean Davis' lack of political sympathy for Tyson's political positions (including AGW) was the motive for his looking for occasions on which Tyson had clowned himself, so what? The reason he found them is that they existed, and that's Tyson's fault. I've seen dirtylawyer point this out to you several times, but it registers not at all. You really need to ask yourself why that is, because immunity to rational argument does not become you. Andyvphil (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Davis' (Heartland/Discovery) argument is a classical ad hominem. There are so many other fallacies involved here that to even use the term "rational argument" in this discussion is offensive. There is nothing rational about the Heartland position. The "messenger" in this case, has a long, sordid reputation for misinformation and propaganda. That means they don't have a reputation for fact checking, which means they aren't a reliable source. This also means, that no matter who carries their water, the original message can't be trusted. And when you look at the sources closely, you see that the ones promoting this trivia are all making the same fallacious arguments. Now, to clarify your other points: if you look very closely at the transcripts of public speakers like Tyson, you will find loads of misquotes and errors. That's the nature of reality. Heartland and Discovery, believe it or not, do this on a regular basis. They identify a person or an organization that they want to target, and then try to find a small error somewhere. Because nobody is perfect, this is easy to do. Next, they take that small trivial error and enlarge it, giving it depth and color, and most importantly, connecting it to their core issue. For Discovery it's "Tyson can't be trusted on evolution, after all, look how he misquotes Bush", and for Heartland it's "Tyson can't be trusted on climate change, look how he misquotes Bush". Both of them, however, make the same, identical argument, "Tyson can't be trusted, don't listen to him, he's a liar". Luckily, there are rational, critical thinkers in the world apart from the jokers at Heartland and Discovery, people who recognize the ad hominems, the hasty generalizations, and the appeal to trivia and fallacy of composition. Those critical thinkers recognize that no matter what Tyson said or did climate change science and evolution have not changed. Viriditas (talk) 00:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said, -I-, with no connections to Heartland and with no sdympathy for creationism, agree that "...you can't trust Tyson on any subject of political valency because he is an uncritical consumer and fabricator of factoids". He didn't make random trivial mistakes, he told whoppers, not because he was lying, but because his critical faculties fail him, and because (opinion alert!) he's too lazy to check any possibility that his preconceptions are in error. And he's dishonest about admitting his mistakes. When he "apologized" he introduced the notion that the mistake about Bush was extemporaneous and maybe one-off because he delivers his talks without notes, ignoring the fact that he'd earlier said that when he'd heard Bush deliver the Challenger speech he'd taken notes on how stupid Bush was being. I don't believe him, but that's what he'd said. And if it's true, boy does it make him look stupid for taking "names" so literally. He said someone had turned up the actual Bush speech which he'd now recognized and was willing to admit must have been the source of his inexplicable memory conflation, ignoring that Sean Davis, not some Tyson Facebook follower, had provided the quote and, iirc, the video of the speech in the very first article on Tyson-Bush. And he says he wasn't really wrong at all, but will continue to use the Bush quote (hopefully, the actual one, not the fabrication), compounding the literalist idiocy. Andyvphil (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I will add that you misuse ad hominem in the same talismatic fashion that you misuse "BLP", with as little understanding of its significance or applicability. It's a logical fallacy when used to rebut an argument, which is not its use by Davis, et al. THey are combatting endorsement, and in that application ad hominem is perfectly appropriate. Andyvphil (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Topic Ban proposed at ANI

I have proposed that you be topic banned from all edits related to Biographies of Living Persons, and that discretionary sanctions be applied to your edits. This is a sub heading under your ANI thread, and may be found at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic Ban of Andyvphil. This has the side effect, hopefully, of separating the discussion of your edits from the discussion of what, if anything, should be done about Gamaliel's. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 16:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Recent ANI

By the way, it was stupid to put in that ANI request. Not only did you obviously get yourself in hot water, but even if EVERYONE there agreed with you, they still wouldn't have the power to do anything about it. Only the arbitration committee in normal circumstances (and stewards/jimbo in extraordinary circumstances) have the authority to remove someone from being an admin. So what you were asking for they didn't have the authority to do. Read this if you want to know more:Misplaced Pages:Removing_administrator_rights. --Obsidi (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)