16 May 2024 |
Hello, welcome to my talk page. To leave a new message, . Please try to keep it relatively organized by signing your posts, posting new topics on the bottom of the page, making relevant headings about your topic and using subheadings, not new headings, for replies. I will almost always reply on this page to messages. I reserve the right to make minor changes of formatting (headings, bolding, etc.) but not content in order to preserve the readability of this page. I will delete without comment rude and/or insulting comments, trolling, threats, comments from people with a history of insults and incivility, and comments posted to the top of this page. Also, I'm much more informal than this disclaimer implies. Thank you.
Before you rant, please read tips for the angry new user and remember the most important rule on Wikipedia.
Archives: 3-8/04 | 9-11/04 | 11/04-2/05 | 2-4/05 | 5-7/05 | 8-10/05 | 11/05-2/06 | 3-7/06 | 8/06-1/07 | 2/07-12/07 | 1/08-5/08 | 6/08-2/09 | 2/09-09/09 | 10/09-2/10 | 3/10-2/11 | 2/11-6/11 | 7-11/1-13 | 2-13/06-13 | 6-13/11-13 | 12-13/5-14 | 6/14-10/14
Index
|
|||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 33.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III. |
Question regarding BLP
Just a doubt
Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_controversy#Conflicts_of_interest.3F_Were_there_any.3F user TaraInDC posted unsourced accusations against a The Escapist staff member, specifically stating his position (making him identifiable) and said he had "financial interest" to a subject of a recent interview (among many others inerviewed), as well as hinting at some sort of sexism with "vehemently pro-GG editor who published their recent article about 'what Game Devs think' about gamergate (that is, the *real* game devs, the male ones, to contrast with their previous article about what the *female* game deves think)"
For some reason I can't access the diff here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TaraInDC
In my opinion this should be redacted but he's been pretty vocal about me for some reason, so I'd like to be sure it's a BLP violation to avoid stupid drama, thanks! Loganmac (talk) 04:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, I'll be unable to look into this for at least 12 hours or so. Maybe you could inform one of the more active administrators watching this page, like User:Dreadstar? Gamaliel (talk) 05:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
you appear to be back in action
Folks at the federalist article defied your statement to let the deletion stand until the discussion finished (which is raging away at BLPN); the content has been edit warred over and is back in the article, and i have also gotten lovely mocking notes like this. Would like you to have a look and enforce discretionary sanctions if you have time and the inclination. I've been looking for you to come back; if you don't intend to please let me know and I will probably go to AE, but want to do proceed stepwise. I also requested page protection and pinged you when i did that. I will have to wait for that also. Will strike that if you think I should do. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
professionalism
Gamaliel, you may or may not remember -- because I was an insignificant newbie -- but I have positive memories of my interactions with you from 5+ years ago, and I wanted you to know that I respect your work as an editor and administrator. That having been said, I believe that WP:BLP is being abused on a partisan basis in the present NDGT RfC and The Federalist/BLP talk page discussion. You don't know me, and you have undoubtedly made assumptions about my personal politics based on my participation, but my professional political background and former party affiliation would probably surprise you. For the last five and a half years I have calculatedly and intentionally avoided any political content discussions in Wikipedia, partly because of the silliness associated with such discussions and my low tolerance for partisanship outside the partisan arena -- even less so when that partisanship is informed by a shallow understanding of the issues and/or crackpot fringe theories -- and partly because I believe I am a more effective editor if I avoid being tagged and labeled politically. I sincerely believe that Wikipedia should be objective, apolitical, nonpartisan. I am also a believer in fairness in process.
In five and a half years, The Federalist BLP discussion is the first and only political content discussion in which I have participated. I got involved not because I particularly cared about the content -- it's a small matter in the grand scheme of things -- but because I was appalled by the blatant partisanship and the self-evident manipulation of BLP policy to achieve an obvious partisan outcome. In my worldview, and my own politics notwithstanding, that is a very bad thing for Wikipedia and its public reputation. The last 24 hours have only reinforced my assessment: personalized comments, baiting, taunting, thinly veiled personal attacks, stonewalling, and unsubstantiated accusations of inappropriate on-wiki conduct (see, e.g, below). And there were several other previously un-involved editors who were attracted to the discussion for the same reason and with the same reactions. None of that group are right-wing POV-pushers; they are believers in procedural fairness and non-partisanship in Wikipedia.
Unlike me, you are relatively open about your personal politics. I also believe that you are among the few nominally "pro-deletion" editors in the present discussion who is doing your best to maintain a certain professional objectivity. I would ask you to consider carefully: is what we are doing in these discussions really in the best interests of Wikipedia? Is the partisan trench warfare to achieve a desired outcome worth the collateral damage? Should the personalized behavior in these discussion be acceptable? These are rhetorical questions; there is no need to actually respond. I only ask that you consider -- consider this an appeal to the administrator I met and whose work I admired five years ago. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- this is unfortunate. dirtlawyer has evinced a lack of understanding of what BLP actually says (ie his list of 6 questions about the content at BLPN, all based on whether how the content fits in the federalist.com article) and has consistently claimed that no one was articulating a clear reason under BLP, which I and others have done several times, and even repeated ourselves for his benefit. Not listening, not working toward consensus. Basically, an antagonistic, disruptive presence in the discussion. (not to mention making 3 reverts in the article over BLP subject matter as of yeserday). Not good. Jytdog (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Jytdog, your compulsion, as evinced by your need to comment on a private talk page discussion, speaks volumes. "Antagonistic" would be an ironically accurate description of your behavior, here and elsewhere. I urge you to critically review your own conduct. I would also suggest that you check your arithmetic before making inaccurate accusations in the future: you have an apparent difficulty with the concepts of two and three. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Again you evince an ignorance of Wikipedia norms and guidelines; nothing is "private" anywhere in WP. As for three:
- revert 11:24, 13 October 2014
- revert 11:57, 13 October 2014
- editing section to add contested material which under WP:EDITWAR "counts" as reversions. (again, you don't know policy/guideline yet you keep making these strong statements) 15:34, 13 October 2014
- I have nothing more to say on this. Jytdog (talk) 14:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Common sense and common courtesy both suggest that you should have had nothing to say on this page from the git-go. Your interpretation of WP:EDITWAR is yet another stretch, Jytdog. The content you are now mischaracterizing as a "revert" was an edit made at the request of a pro-deletion editor, Mr. Swordfish, to remove the word "fabricate" and was a good-faith attempt at creating compromise language and thus resolve the dispute (please see talk page discussion). If you feel strongly enough to make such accusations here, please feel free to make a report at the 3RR/Editwar noticeboard or ANI. Just be prepared for the boomerang consequences -- your "battleground" mentality is on full display for everyone to read. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Again you evince an ignorance of Wikipedia norms and guidelines; nothing is "private" anywhere in WP. As for three:
- Jytdog, your compulsion, as evinced by your need to comment on a private talk page discussion, speaks volumes. "Antagonistic" would be an ironically accurate description of your behavior, here and elsewhere. I urge you to critically review your own conduct. I would also suggest that you check your arithmetic before making inaccurate accusations in the future: you have an apparent difficulty with the concepts of two and three. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- this is unfortunate. dirtlawyer has evinced a lack of understanding of what BLP actually says (ie his list of 6 questions about the content at BLPN, all based on whether how the content fits in the federalist.com article) and has consistently claimed that no one was articulating a clear reason under BLP, which I and others have done several times, and even repeated ourselves for his benefit. Not listening, not working toward consensus. Basically, an antagonistic, disruptive presence in the discussion. (not to mention making 3 reverts in the article over BLP subject matter as of yeserday). Not good. Jytdog (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Gamaliel, I apologize for the back-and-forth comments that follow my original 3-paragraph post above. I attempted to transfer the discussion initiated by User:Jytdog to Jytdog's user talk page, but he simply deleted it with the edit summary "not interested in having this conversation further. i wrote my last on gamaliel's page." Apparently, he did not want to clutter his own talk page with the back-and-forth he left here. This is exactly the intentionally provocative and personalized conduct which I referenced above in my original post. These are crystal-clear attempts to browbeat, intimidate and silence another editor involved in a content dispute, and it's a very sad commentary on the conduct of the editor in question. I don't know what else to say. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
It disturbs me to see two people who appear to be well-meaning and conscientious Wikipedia editors at such odds. I need a no Wikipedia day to focus on my personal and professional obligations; I will attempt to respond to both of you in depth after that. In the meantime, please remember WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Gamaliel (talk) 17:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
- Frankly, Gamaliel, it disturbs me as well, but contrary to several assertions above, I'm not the one stoking the flames (pun intended) of an adversarial relationship.
- Enjoy your no-Wikipedia day. There's nothing going on here which urgently requires your attention. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Arbitration enforcement
Please see this report and comment where appropriate. Viriditas (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
The Signpost: 15 October 2014
- Op-ed: Ships—sexist or sexy?
- Arbitration report: One case closed and two opened
- Featured content: Bells ring out at the Temple of the Dragon at Peace
- Technology report: Attempting to parse wikitext
- Traffic report: Now introducing ... mobile data
- WikiProject report: Signpost reaches the Midwest
- Read this Signpost in full
- Single-page
- Unsubscribe
- MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia article falsely links player to college sports scandal for six years
Good work! GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
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.[1] 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: Wikipedia: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)
- "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 puirpose, 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 [and] completely summariz[e]" 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 Wikipedia 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)
- 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)
- "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..."
Please reconsider your block
Your blocking Andyvphil does not look good. I know he can be frustrating to deal with, but if you felt his messages on your talkpage here deserved a block, you should have requested it at ANI. As you have been involved in editing disputes with him, the block seems very ill-timed. Please consider reverting your block. LHMask me a question 01:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I will lift the block if he will agree stay off my talk page as I have requested multiple times. When I have attempted to disengage from this issue repeatedly and he will not stop posting here, that crosses the line into disruption and harassment. Frankly, I could justify a block for his original comments on Talk:Neil DeGrasse Tyson alone. His behavior here only compounds the matter. Gamaliel (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- "Stay[ing] off [an admin's] talkpage" is not a valid block reason, though. And his comments at the article on Dr. Tyson, while not on-point, aren't disruption. Please don't take this as a defense of Andyvphil. Personally, I find the tack he takes a bit off-putting, even when we find ourselves on the same side of a discussion. But this block looks really bad, Gamaliel. Again, please consider reverting it. LHMask me a question 01:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have already considered it, I have already agreed, and I have already stated the conditions with which I will do so. Gamaliel (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I hope you understand how bad this looks. You were clearly WP:INVOLVED with Andyvphil, and should have asked at the noticeboard for such a block to be placed. Doing it yourself looks punitive and inappropriate. I know he's frustrating to deal with, but pushing the block button yourself to rid you of that frustration? That's not good. LHMask me a question 01:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Why don't you post a message on his talk page discussing how bad it looks for him to harass a minority with his racist theories about affirmative action? Gamaliel (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have posted my thoughts about his contributions to the NDGT talkpage at his talk. But there is a vast difference on-wiki between an admin blocking an editor they are involved with and an editor making iffy edits at an article talkpage. The power-imbalance between a regular editor and an admin, simply from the existence of block buttons, makes what you did a bigger matter on-wiki. LHMask me a question 01:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- (ec)Agree, regardless of what Andyphil has said, you are involved and blocked him for posting on your talkpage. This is a clear example of WP:TOOLMISUSE and you should have taken this to ANI. Have an uninvolved admin block him. Arzel (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have no wish to be involved with him at all. I am under no obligation as an administrator to allow myself to be the victim of racist harassment. Gamaliel (talk) 01:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have posted my thoughts about his contributions to the NDGT talkpage at his talk. But there is a vast difference on-wiki between an admin blocking an editor they are involved with and an editor making iffy edits at an article talkpage. The power-imbalance between a regular editor and an admin, simply from the existence of block buttons, makes what you did a bigger matter on-wiki. LHMask me a question 01:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Why don't you post a message on his talk page discussing how bad it looks for him to harass a minority with his racist theories about affirmative action? Gamaliel (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I hope you understand how bad this looks. You were clearly WP:INVOLVED with Andyvphil, and should have asked at the noticeboard for such a block to be placed. Doing it yourself looks punitive and inappropriate. I know he's frustrating to deal with, but pushing the block button yourself to rid you of that frustration? That's not good. LHMask me a question 01:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I have already considered it, I have already agreed, and I have already stated the conditions with which I will do so. Gamaliel (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- "Stay[ing] off [an admin's] talkpage" is not a valid block reason, though. And his comments at the article on Dr. Tyson, while not on-point, aren't disruption. Please don't take this as a defense of Andyvphil. Personally, I find the tack he takes a bit off-putting, even when we find ourselves on the same side of a discussion. But this block looks really bad, Gamaliel. Again, please consider reverting it. LHMask me a question 01:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I've looked through Andyvphil's contribs, but haven't found him posting "racist harassment" aimed at you. LHMask me a question 01:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- His refusal to disengage despite repeated polite requests and his insistence on haranguing me, a minority academic, until I engage with him in a lengthy discussion of his theories about minority academics and affirmative action, is what I consider racist harassment. Gamaliel (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Did he know you were a minority? We have had our issues in the past, but I never knew. Arzel (talk) 01:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict × 2)Again, blocking an editor you are involved with for "refusal to disenage" with you is not an appropriate response. If you felt strongly that he'd done something blockable, you should have taken it to the appropriate noticeboard. LHMask me a question 01:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I understand your opinion, and we will have to disagree. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's really too bad. At this point, though, if you are taken to ANI about this bad block, I will be supporting overturning it. I view it as a clear misuse of your blocking tool. LHMask me a question 01:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I understand your position. Let me be clear. I don't care if the block is overturned or not. The block was not intended to be punitive, it was intended to prevent further harassment. I am not seeking sanctions. I just want him to leave me alone. Gamaliel (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- And therein lies the problem: you're not allowed to use your block button to get "him to leave [you] alone." You're allowed to take it to ANI like a regular editor would. If you revert your block, and he refuses to stop posting to your talkpage, I may well take him to ANI over it myself. But blocking him yourself looks bad. LHMask me a question 01:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I understand your position. Let me be clear. I don't care if the block is overturned or not. The block was not intended to be punitive, it was intended to prevent further harassment. I am not seeking sanctions. I just want him to leave me alone. Gamaliel (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's really too bad. At this point, though, if you are taken to ANI about this bad block, I will be supporting overturning it. I view it as a clear misuse of your blocking tool. LHMask me a question 01:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I understand your opinion, and we will have to disagree. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Gamaliel, I strongly suggest you back way off of this case. Your level of involvement is quite immense and I think you've made a very foolish and unwise decision to block instead of asking an an administrator's noticeboard. Your defense of your actions has me seriously questioning your decision. The only reason I'm not calling for your bit right now is because I'd have likely blocked for the same reasons. That said, you need to start showing some immense humility here and come off your aggressiveness or this may need to go to Arbcom. Good block or not, it was very involved and it does not justify your actions. The part of WP:INVOLVED that says "any administrator would do it" refers to vandalism, threats of violence, ect. Not editing disputes. Really, time to back off and not edit Andy's talk page anymore. You're already too far into this for it to end well for you, but you need to do serious damage control at this point.--v/r - TP 02:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- @TP: It would be easy to resolve this—unblock Andyvphil on the condition that they will not post here. Per comments above that is all that is required. There is a claim of "I consider racist harassment" above, and a bureaucratic investigation into what should have occurred is unwarranted. Johnuniq (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I thought about that - but I don't want to complicate a situation any more than it is. Now isn't the time for knee jerk actions or cowboy adminship.--v/r - TP 02:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Normally what you say would be totally correct. However, a little kindness is required here. Look at what Gamaliel wrote above:
"I don't care if the block is overturned or not. The block was not intended to be punitive, it was intended to prevent further harassment. I am not seeking sanctions. I just want him to leave me alone."
That's a call for help, not an abusive admin. The situation is that, rightly or wrongly, an admin has reacted to what the admin thinks is personal racial harassment, and there will be no benefit from contemplating the correct procedure. Johnuniq (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)- There is a process for that, this is the not process. It is a direct violation of admin tools. Arzel (talk) 02:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I agree, but the bit requires a bit of level headedness and reaching out for help before using the bit for personal reasons. This is a matter of balancing the compassion we have for someone who felt threatened with the ethics of using their position of power. I don't want to complicate it by taking unilateral actions.--v/r - TP 02:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Normally what you say would be totally correct. However, a little kindness is required here. Look at what Gamaliel wrote above:
- What should be done about the misuse of the blocking tool and refusal to revert when asked? LHMask me a question 02:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I thought about that - but I don't want to complicate a situation any more than it is. Now isn't the time for knee jerk actions or cowboy adminship.--v/r - TP 02:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm confused about your comments here. This has nothing to do with an editing dispute and I was not editing Andy's talk page beyond informing him of the block. Gamaliel (talk) 02:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- You are involved in an editing dispute with Andy. That dispute let to your accusation about racism. Andy came here asking you to justify that accusation and you told him to go away. He asked again leading to this block. The trail of facts is quite clear that this spawned from an editing dispute. If you are confused, then we may need to fact-based approach of an Arbcom case to clarify it.--v/r - TP 02:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- "Andy came here asking you to justify that accusation and you told him to go away. He asked again leading to this block." In the middle is the part where I repeatedly tried to explain matters to him and he escalated. Gamaliel (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Please understand that I am not here to hound you and I am trying to understand what is going on and help diffuse this. From what I can see, Andy asked you for diffs. Your replies were as follows:
- "I have reviewed your deleted comments again and I believe you are not accurately or not completely summarizing them here."
- "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."
- "I do not have the obligation to repeatedly engage with someone who insists on making blanket racist assertions."
- I would appreciate it if you could please supply diffs supporting your allegations of racism. From what I can read, Andy has accurately said that NDGT washed out of a specific university despite going on to achieve degrees elsewhere. This is not racism, it is a statement of fact. I saw the diff Andy refers to above and I can sort of see what you are saying in that diff but it is so ambiguous as to be questionable if it is saying what you say it is saying. Following that diff, you justify your action by saying you are also a racial minority. I'm not sure that justifies an admin action. Since the rest of us are not as intimately familar with the dispute as you are, can you show us a whole picture of the racism that Andy has been projecting?--v/r - TP 03:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. I understand where you are coming from and if my comments are terse, they reflect my level of tension regarding the situation, which is in its third day (!), and not your posts here. That said, I don't think your summary accurately reflects what has happened and that perhaps you are skimming too quickly through the discussion, or my comments have not been clear. My race does not "justify" any admin action, but it does mean that I am perfectly within my rights to want to disengage from a discussion with Andy regarding how he dismisses the academic achievements of myself and Tyson solely because of our race. Gamaliel (talk) 03:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Okay, that's very reasonable. I still think that it means you shouldn't have taken the original action, but it puts your reply into an entirely different context. I am skimming this issue. I'm bouncing between making lunches for the week with my wife and checking up here. I'm going to wrap up this tangent of the thread and continue the rest below.--v/r - TP 03:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. I understand where you are coming from and if my comments are terse, they reflect my level of tension regarding the situation, which is in its third day (!), and not your posts here. That said, I don't think your summary accurately reflects what has happened and that perhaps you are skimming too quickly through the discussion, or my comments have not been clear. My race does not "justify" any admin action, but it does mean that I am perfectly within my rights to want to disengage from a discussion with Andy regarding how he dismisses the academic achievements of myself and Tyson solely because of our race. Gamaliel (talk) 03:40, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Please understand that I am not here to hound you and I am trying to understand what is going on and help diffuse this. From what I can see, Andy asked you for diffs. Your replies were as follows:
- "Andy came here asking you to justify that accusation and you told him to go away. He asked again leading to this block." In the middle is the part where I repeatedly tried to explain matters to him and he escalated. Gamaliel (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- You are involved in an editing dispute with Andy. That dispute let to your accusation about racism. Andy came here asking you to justify that accusation and you told him to go away. He asked again leading to this block. The trail of facts is quite clear that this spawned from an editing dispute. If you are confused, then we may need to fact-based approach of an Arbcom case to clarify it.--v/r - TP 02:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- @TP: It would be easy to resolve this—unblock Andyvphil on the condition that they will not post here. Per comments above that is all that is required. There is a claim of "I consider racist harassment" above, and a bureaucratic investigation into what should have occurred is unwarranted. Johnuniq (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Gamaliel, I just wanted to say thank you for your attempts in this situation. I was about to leave one discussion as the outright racist comments by Andyvphil disgusted me. Objective3000 (talk) 02:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Please provide diffs of these "outright racist comments" or retract the accusation. While Andyvphil's discussion tactics annoy me, accusations of racism are very serious. Such accusations should either be substantiated or retracted. LHMask me a question 02:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry for butting in. The worst were removed and hidden. But, look at his performance from the start. He started early on stating that Neil deGrasse Tyson is a failure as a scientist. He repeatedly used the words wash-out even editing them into a semi-protected BLP without consensus (and made a failed attempt at having me blocked when I removed these unsourced characterizations.) He questioned how Tyson could even be admitted to Columbia. His insistence made no sense to me until he started talking about how he was certain that Tyson received special treatment due to his race and that was likely behind his failure. He provided not one shred of evidence. He then posted his theories about Tyson and affirmative action, now hidden. Twice I asked him to explain what appeared to be racist statements, and he refused. Not one of the large number of editors on the Tyson Talk page questioned my suggestions that Andy’s edits appeared racist, except for Andy. I have no time to wend my way through the massive discussions on several pages. I, also, have made no formal complaints about his actions. I didn’t even add my voice to the attempt to block him a few days ago. Block me if you wish. I will be leaving all pages where he posts anyhow until someone deals with his behavior. If you guys have a problem with Gamaliel's actions, there is a simple solution. Unblock Andy and then immediately reblock him. Better yet, topic-ban Andy. Objective3000 (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- 'IRC Gamaliel, could you come on IRC so you and I can discuss what to do about the block. I don't want to take over or unblock without talking to you. Johnuniq's suggestion above seems good, but I'd like to take face-to-face in a manner of speaking.--v/r - TP 02:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Um, it's been years since I've used IRC. Can you link me to where I'm supposed to go? Gamaliel (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Also, if you are referring to Johnuniq's suggestion to "unblock Andyvphil on the condition that they will not post here", I have already agreed to that in my comments to User:Lithistman above. Gamaliel (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
This is how I view the situation:
- In regards to the article Neil DeGrasse Tyson, I don't recall if I've edited the article at all, but I've made my opinion known about article content issues on the talk page. This is hardly what I'd call being involved in an editing dispute with Andy. Regardless, under normal circumstances I would refrain from engaging in administrative actions regarding the article.
- Andy has repeatedly crossed the line on Talk:Neil DeGrasse Tyson, so much I've had to previously redact his comments and ask him to refrain from posting denigrating comments about the subject of the article. I judged that the necessity of enforcing BLP in this case made it necessary for me to act despite my involvement in the article.
- On Friday, Andy posted a comment on Talk:Neil DeGrasse Tyson that was so offensive to the subject of the article that I deemed it necessary to take immediate administrative action, so I reverted it and revision deleted the edit.
- Andy posted on my talk page challenging this action. His initial comments were polite so I responded to him in kind, despite the extreme offensiveness, both to the subject of the article and to me personally, of his statements on the talk page of the article. I attempted to explain to him why I took the actions I did and why his comments were racially offensive, even if he did not intend them to be so.
- Andy refused to be satisfied by any of my comments, ignoring the substance of what I said and the fact that I repeatedly noted his assertions were offensive to me personally.
- At this point I attempted to disengage, but he continued to escalate his comments repeatedly, despite my repeated requests to disengage, to a level which I consider harassment.
- If an administrator takes an administrative action and is repeatedly harassed by the subject of that action, this is a clear case for a block.
- The block on Andy was not intended to be punative, it was intended to be preventative, as per policy.
- I think a block for Andy was justified at any number of points in this process, and because of my involvement, albeit limited, in the article, I did not block him earlier. Were I completely uninvolved, I would have blocked or topic banned him for his repeated negative comments at Talk:Neil DeGrasse Tyson, or blocked him for continued harassment after any of my three earlier requests that he disengage. Gamaliel (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- "If an administrator takes an administrative action and is repeatedly harassed by the subject of that action, this is a clear case for a block." This just smacks WP:ADMINACCT in the face. If you cannot justify your actions, don't take them. And even if that quotation were true, you do not get to determine whether it is a case for a block. Someone other sysop has to do that. Basic ethics.--v/r - TP 03:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I feel I have satisfied WP:ADMINACCT above. The policy requires justification, which I believe I have provided. It does not require me to continue to engage with him indefinitely, nor does it require me to submit to racially-based harassment. Gamaliel (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to say, but no, you haven't fulfilled WP:ADMINACCT. Yes, you have replied to Andy's queries. But as the quotes I've picked up by you above show, your answered his questions with more accusations. The way you justify your actions is with diffs. Please supply those. Diffs, and not more accusations, satisfies WP:ADMINACCT.--v/r - TP 03:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- Admins have to clean out the stables, and take abuse. Editors are expected to be generally clueless and to poke admins. However, if an editor unduly pokes an admin, that admin must get another admin to sanction the editor. Canvassing is fine—it's not called canvassing, and you don't say "please block X". You just post at WP:AN (or WP:ANI if urgent) and ask for admin review of your request for an editor to stop posting because it is viewed as harassment. It's also fine to post at another admin's talk page with a similar neutral request. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I largely agree with Johnuniq here. We want to support you and get to the facts, we just need your help to do so.--v/r - TP 03:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- After 24 hours of talk page discussion with and harassment by Andy, the prospect of going to ANI and having people like The Devil's Advocate explain that I'm an asshole for not wanting to be endlessly harangued in a racially abusive way, and how dare I enforce BLP delete his precious talk page posts? It's simple. I deleted an offensive comment per BLP and then I was harassed for 24 hours, so I blocked the harasser. For people to say, hey, I agree, it was all terrible but you should have done it in a different, even more time consuming way that results in even more harassment, that's ridiculous. You want to review the block, fine. Review it. Overturn it. Whatever. That's ethics, that's accountability, they are all satisfied. Let's not pretend this is some kind of egregious abuse because I didn't jump through enough hoops to block a guy I could have justified blocking three days ago. Gamaliel (talk) 03:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- You really need to supply some diffs of this alleged "racial abuse", or stop making those accusations. LHMask me a question 03:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- I feel I have satisfied WP:ADMINACCT above. The policy requires justification, which I believe I have provided. It does not require me to continue to engage with him indefinitely, nor does it require me to submit to racially-based harassment. Gamaliel (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- "If an administrator takes an administrative action and is repeatedly harassed by the subject of that action, this is a clear case for a block." This just smacks WP:ADMINACCT in the face. If you cannot justify your actions, don't take them. And even if that quotation were true, you do not get to determine whether it is a case for a block. Someone other sysop has to do that. Basic ethics.--v/r - TP 03:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
You have a duty to respond to legitimate requests for explanations regarding your actions (and, in this case, accusations) as an administrator. LHMask me a question 03:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Gamaliel - what you signed up for when you went through RFA was to not use the tools in personal disputes. If harrassment is happening and you can't deal, you simply need to alert another admin. ANI, talk pages, email. That is all available to you. What is not available to you is the bit. No one is saying that you have to tolerate harrassment, but you are not allowed to use the bit. You need to raise the alarm a lot sooner. If you cannot do that, you really should consider whether you should have the bit on a voluntary basis. This is an egregious abuse, I really wish you understood that because we could get through this so much quicker. You are in a position of power. Someone made comments that you felt were harassment, you felt were racial, and you used your position of power to enforce your perception. Your perception may be entirely accurate, but your use of your position of power was not. You should have justified blocking him 3 days ago - to WP:AN. The only facts we need is diffs of racist behavior or comments. After ec: Let's talk tomorrow after you've slept on it. Perhaps you'll have time to reflect on our comments. I won't take any further actions tonight.--v/r - TP 03:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- You're right, I should have taken it to ANI on Friday, or even a week ago. It's clear that I should not have allowed him to escalate to this point. Gamaliel (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- So is Andyvphil going to stay improperly blocked until Gamaliel wakes up? That hardly seems a fair course to take, no matter my distaste for his discussion style. And given that Gamaliel won't respond to the requests for diffs regarding the "racist/racism" accusations, I don't see how this avoids Arbcom. LHMask me a question 04:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- He can unblock himself by leaving me alone, we covered that about three hours ago. Gamaliel (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- This is just utter defiance of clear blocking guidelines. Are you trying to lose your bit, Gamaliel? I've been unfailingly polite to you throughout this discussion, but this needs to end now. LHMask me a question 04:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- He can unblock himself by leaving me alone, we covered that about three hours ago. Gamaliel (talk) 04:04, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Gamaliel - what you signed up for when you went through RFA was to not use the tools in personal disputes. If harrassment is happening and you can't deal, you simply need to alert another admin. ANI, talk pages, email. That is all available to you. What is not available to you is the bit. No one is saying that you have to tolerate harrassment, but you are not allowed to use the bit. You need to raise the alarm a lot sooner. If you cannot do that, you really should consider whether you should have the bit on a voluntary basis. This is an egregious abuse, I really wish you understood that because we could get through this so much quicker. You are in a position of power. Someone made comments that you felt were harassment, you felt were racial, and you used your position of power to enforce your perception. Your perception may be entirely accurate, but your use of your position of power was not. You should have justified blocking him 3 days ago - to WP:AN. The only facts we need is diffs of racist behavior or comments. After ec: Let's talk tomorrow after you've slept on it. Perhaps you'll have time to reflect on our comments. I won't take any further actions tonight.--v/r - TP 03:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)