• Comment The total amount of discussion on Hidden Tempo's talk page is overwhelming. FT2's summary of the situation in this section (User_talk:Hidden_Tempo#Review_of_block) is concise and covers the relevant points. D.Creish (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Unblock without conditions. I agree with Thucydides411. The blocking admin continues to fail to provide the diffs, all while accusing another editor of failing to answer one of their questions. We already have one admin currently hauled before ArbCom for repeated failure to provide evidence. Add to that the fact that MastCell returned from a 1.5 month hiatus right before handing down an indef block, and I get the strong impression that Hidden Tempo has not been treated fairly. Lepricavark (talk) 15:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 16:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]
  MastCell makes the claim that he has provided "evidence" for his reasons behind the indefinite block (""tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing [and] edit-warring"), after being confronted once again for his refusal to provide diffs of the post-TBAN behavior in question[4]. However, as every reasonable editor understands, a link to an ANI discussion in which I was tangentially involved and an AE appeal from last December is not "evidence" of the indef-worthy post-TBAN behavior which he is claiming. MastCell has not provided diffs of the behavior in question. Period. I admitted to the 3RR violation (as a result of removing BLPVIO material). The other three claims are catchall, vague, highly general and subjective accusations for which there is no evidence, which is why MC either a) can't find any diffs or b) has the diffs, but refuses to provide them for some unknown reason. I leave it to the community to decide which possibility is more likely. Hidden Tempo (talk) 11:24, Today (UTC−5)
• Unblock with previous topic ban re-instated. Mastcell has provided a sufficient rationale at the time of the block, and subsequently to explain the block, and its clear from HT's editing history the topic ban prior to the block served its purpose in preventing disruption. Regardless of if HT accepts a topic ban or not, he can be unblocked and have one imposed upon him. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:55, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• A couple of points:
  1. It isn't fair to say that MastCell didn't provide diffs or rationale for the block. MastCell blocked from an open thread at ANI and provided a rationale there (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive961#Sanity_break) and then when challenged, MastCell gave more detailed rationale here and here and here.
  2. "Indefinite" block does not mean forever. The block lasts only as long as it takes for the user to recognize the problem and make a commitment to fix it. That's the reason no admin was willing to touch the unblock request. Hidden Tempo clearly doesn't recognize there's a problem, and instead spends their time attacking the blocking admin and any others they perceive as enemies.
  3. In my review of the editor's history after having been pinged to the talk page, I found what appeared to be a history of tendentious editing and battleground mentality. Part of the problem is that the user seems to categorize editors into camps based their contributions to political articles. (You can see a small sample of this by going to the user's talk page and doing a Ctrl+F for "editing pattern", or for a longer read, read the sentences where HT uses the term "AP2".)
  4. I would have been happy to unblock the user myself if I had seen anything resembling a serious commitment to fix the problem. I didn't.

Based on this, I think the best path forward would be to implement the topic ban as proposed by User:Bishonen. It would have been better if the user had accepted that themselves, or proposed a suitable alternative, but the time for that has passed I'm afraid. ~Awilley (talk) 16:56, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I should clarify that I think the user should be unblocked (and not community banned) as they have not to my knowledge proved themselves a net-negative in any area other than American politics. ~Awilley (talk) 05:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 17:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Awilley uses the same rationale as MastCell - contending that a link to a pre-indef AE appeal and a link to Nfitz's ANI report (also pre-indef) is sufficient evidence for a pattern of post-TBAN "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing [and] edit-warring" editing. It's not. A sanction as severe as an indef block requires detailed, clear, unambiguous diffs of my edits, showing the claimed editing pattern. Intentional or not, MastCell muddies the waters and poisons the well by going on and on about pre/mid-TBAN behavior. "He was TBANNED last December...he edited a talk page with a sock last February...he got into a heated content dispute at Stephen Miller..." That doesn't cut it. If I had the diffs, then I could see the problem to which you and MastCell are referring, view the specific edits in question, and then address the problem and rectify the editing pattern. But of course, we never saw the diffs. Ex: Awilley is an employee and comes into work, but is sent home because Awilley is not compliant with the company's dress code. Awilley must be told explicitly and specifically how he is violating company policy, or else Awilley will come into work day after day, and be sent home day after day, until Awilley figures out the correct wardrobe combination. Is Awilley being treated fairly? Does this scenario indicate a productive, efficient process of remedying a problem? That is what is happening here. I addressed each and every single block reason in my UBR and followed WP:GAB to the letter, and I did it with diffs. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is Awilley wearing a t-shirt that says "FUCK YOU BOSS" or something like that? Drmies (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, in certain circumstances it's quite clear. In others, not so much. If my boy gets sent home because he has pants with belt loops but is not wearing a belt (OMFG yeah we have those kinds of rules in America), I can complain because in kindergarten you are allowed pants with belt loops but without belt. And if he gets sent home for some stupid infraction I may well ask why, since his sister and I do our best every morning to make sure we're following all the pissy little rules. But if he shows up with a t-shirt that says "Jesus is a ****" (I won't write this common British insult, but the shirt exists) I am not going to be surprised if he doesn't make it into the classroom. And my arguing that the shirt actually had the proper school colors is not going to help him much. Drmies (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 04:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]
I'm sorry, but that belt analogy didn't really make your t-shirt analogy more clear (on my end, at least). I believe you're contending that my alleged post-TBAN pattern of "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing [and] edit-warring" is so immediately apparent, obvious, and unambiguous that MastCell is completely exempt from WP:ADMINACCT and is thus not required to provide diffs (outside of a few non-sequitur links to an AE appeal from last year and somebody else's ANI report)? If I've gotten that right, then why the need for a very polarized AN discussion? Several editors have rallied to my defense here (for which I am extremely grateful, by the way), echoing my sentiments about evidence-free sanctions being permitted to stand, and observing none of the behavior that MastCell believed to be so egregious as to warrant an indefinite block in order to protect the project from my film, sports, and yes, even my AP2 edits. If what you're saying is true, no discussion would be required. To stick with your analogy, perhaps Awilley would be arriving to work without a required red pocket square (even though Awilley is wearing one), sent home without being told why, and refusing to give a reason after being asked for one repeatedly. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 04:41, 16 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]
My point was that the reason for your block was pretty clear. No, that doesn't mean no discussion is ever required. What it means is that not all cases are the same--some are easily nailed with a diff or two, others are shown by an overview of a particular discussion and a few other pointers. That so many admins (and other editors) agree, and that no one except for Boing, who is a very kind individual, and FT2 have chosen to even engage with you should be a pretty clear signal too. Drmies (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley: It is fair to say that MastCell didn't provide diffs. Looking through the ANI post you linked and the three subsequent explanations, the thing that strikes me is that MastCell did not provide diffs showing a pattern of problematic behavior since Hidden Tempo had returned to editing American Politics. The diffs that MastCell did provide were simply rehashes of the previous sanctions. MastCell's rationale appears to boil down to: you were sanctioned previously, so I don't need to provide evidence that your current editing is problematic - I can simply declare it to be so. MastCell has had plenty of opportunities to provide diffs showing that HT's post-sanction behavior is problematic, and they have, for whatever reason, not done so.

As far as I'm concerned, this refusal to provide evidence should render the sanction invalid. If sanctions are warranted, any administrator is free to gather evidence in the form of diffs, present it to the community, and propose new sanctions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:57, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Unblock while restoring the topic ban I've said it from the beginning when I was pinged by HT initially and I will repeat it again. The only way to move this forward is to enact the first step, which is to unblock the editor and restore the topic ban. Only then we can have discussions about the validity of the ban and the administrative actions – these discussions cannot happen concurrently. Therefore, I agree with Ivanvector and Awilley, endorse the offer proposed by Bishonen even though it has expired. Alex Shih^Talk 17:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Topic ban is a minimum. I agree with Awilley, Bish, etc. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by reviewing admin: I was pinged by Alex Shih on 23 August and reviewed the block, so I'll not opine on the unblock request itself (I said I would defer on that to others). I would like to draw the community's attention to my summary findings. 1/ HT was blocked and evaded, the block ended on 17 March and his topic-related TBAN ended on 17 June. Between May and end July he edited on other topics, and there is no trace seen of admin discussion, no blocks, 3RR, etc. During July 2 to 1 Aug he was not on TBAN and there were again no adverse issues noted. This suggested that a full indef might not be needed to protect the project. The sole issue since was a BLP dispute in early Aug, where HT may in fact have been right per policy (the reinstater must demonstrate BLP is complied with for negative reinsertions and HT's concern was not addressed). I did see CIV/AFG issues but the user was evidently trying to improve in those areas.I asked for anything else adverse since March/July showing the behavior in the block, and none was provided. Against that, the few respected admins who did opine, such as Bishonen, felt there were concerns as evidently did the blocking admin. I remain concerned on the question of whether too much reliance is placed on stale conduct and whether it obscures a lack of recent and as-claimed conduct. Also about the blocking admin's handling (I felt the block was 'sloppy' and could have been improved by good handling). My review is on HT's talk page if wanted. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Unblock With Indef TBAN "Tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing" is an accurate summary of his behavior. Switching from a block to a TBAN including American Politics seems reasonable. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unconditional unblock. MastCell was well within his discretion to make the block, and it was adequately explained and well supported. Agree with Awilley, Bish, Drmies, that indefinite topic ban from American politics is a minimum. I have to say that HT's reaction to the unblock is really illuminating. It would be one thing if HT took an approach along the lines of "I understand that my conduct here was not ideal for X and Y reasons, but I can be a productive editor and going forward will commit to do X, Y, Z." Instead he took a more confrontational approach: bashing the blocking admin, refusing to admit fault or error, and declining the initial, generous offer to convert the indef block into a topic ban. Neutrality^talk 00:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 04:27, 16 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]
  Neutrality - this is the first time I've ever seen a diff-less block earn the characterization of "well supported." Of course, my indef is probably the first time I've seen a block without diffs period. A block given without diffs, with multiple refusals to provide these supposed diffs that may or may not exist can never be described as "adequately explained and well supported." You go on to say that I did not acknowledge that my conduct was not ideal or say that I can be productive. Did you read my UBR? If you had, you would have seen this, this, this, this and multiple other edits where I explicitly acknowledge violating 3RR policy (even when taking WP:BLPREMOVE into consideration), accept fault for the violation, and lay out my reasons why I can, and continue to be a productive editor. You also used very imprecise language (as others did) to describe my critique of the blocking administrator: "bashing the blocking admin", when that's not at all what I was doing. I'm sure MastCell is a fine person and admin. I have no personal qualms with MastCell. My problem is with his application of this sanction without the required diffs, especially with his AP2 editing patterns and highly irregular and alarming timeline surrounding his 10 minute review of my user contribs. Finally, when someone says this, and then suddenly decides I am in need of an indef TBAN, we really need to take a step back at some point and decide if the full story is on display, here. Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This again shows no insight at all. The implication of impropriety by MastCell is completely meritless. Multiple editors (Drmies and MrX among them) have produced multiple diffs. Take diff 1 - do you think this is acceptable? Or diff 2 - do you understand why others (like MrX and me) think that this was an abuse of BLP? Saying "oh, I violated 3RR" does not show acceptance of responsibility. You've acknowledged no problems with the substance of the edits. Neutrality^talk 15:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo - Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  Neutrality - at least four editors and one administrator have requested diffs from MastCell, to no avail. Your thesis seems to be that a link to a declined 2016 AE appeal and Nfitz's ANI report satisfies WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. It does not, as the extremely divided response to MC's indef shows. MrX provided diffs pre-2016 TBAN. Bishonen warned me and subsequently TBAN'd me partially due to those diffs. The TBAN expires, and after ~1.5 months, I receive an indefinite block, for edits after the TBAN. This indefinite block is for an editing pattern post-TBAN in that 1.5 month window. We are asking for the post-TBAN diffs that show the post-TBAN problematic editing pattern, which have not been produced by MastCell, Drmies or any other Wikipedian. We are not here to debate 2016 pre-TBAN edits.

  I understand that you have a different interpretation of WP:BLPREMOVE than FT2 and I, but I admitted to 3RR (as anyone who read my UBR already knows): "[I] made a mistake by violating 3RR a few days ago. I should have waited for my OR noticeboard posting[1] to come to some conclusion.","I have already stated that my single 3RR violation in my editing history was a mistake, and would not reoccur","While it does not excuse my violation of 3RR, I did so [per WP:BLPREMOVE"],"3RR is the only one that has any real validity, which I already confessed to and said I would not repeat.". So my first ever 3RR vio has been handled. We are now asking for post-TBAN diffs of "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive" editing in AP2/non-AP2 areas which definitively show the need for an indefinite block. Please, Neutrality, stop perpetuating demonstrably false narratives without reading the talk page discussion. I cannot acknowledge problems with the "substance of the edits" if ZERO post-TBAN edits have been provided. Hidden Tempo (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Unblock Looking at HT's replies above and to admins on his talk page doesn't fill me with confidence that they even understand why they were blocked in the first place. Usually the first thing you have to do to get unblocked from indefinite is to explain how you handle these situations if they arise again. I don't see that happening here. Valeince (talk) 01:06, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 04:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]
  Valeince - how much of my UBR did you read? I addressed each reason point by point. However, I can't get into specifics because MastCell refuses to provide diffs of the behavior which he alleges occurred after the TBAN. If MastCell would show us some evidence, some diffs of this pattern...perhaps then I could explicitly address those edits. Until then, we can only speak in general terms and make guesses as to what MastCell thinks is "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive" editing. Also, take a look at my UBR. I explicitly said numerous times that should another WP:BLPREMOVE issue arise, I would take allow my NOR posting to resolve before removing the contested BLPVIO material. Please fully inform yourself with the facts before commenting on this discussion. Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Unblock I don't see that this is a stalemate. It's not a conundrum, it's a block. Seems warranted. Standard reinstatement framework should apply. SPECIFICO talk 01:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose any unblock Favor indef block; oppose any unblock without indef TBAN. Christ Almighty that was an infinitely long history to read through on his talkpage. Bottom line, the user has demonstrated multiple bad-faith behaviors, including socking to evade a TBAN, lying about that pretending not to know that was wrong, and then endlessly wikilawyering and evading reality/facts in the discussions on his talkpage and here (why are we letting him endlessly disrupt the conversation here?). Given the discussions I read, I do not think this editor is a net positive on Wikipedia, and I personally believe they will probably continue to be a disruptive influence and timesink if they are unblocked. Softlavender (talk) 04:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC); edited 06:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC); revised !vote 04:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 05:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]
  Softlavender - you are more than entitled to your own opinions on my editing, and whether or not my UBR sufficiently addresses the diff-less grounds for the indef. What you are not entitled to is casting WP:ASPERSIONS. I already had to correct this falsehood when it was uttered by Floquenbeam, so it appears you did not read through the discussion very carefully. I admitted to the sockpuppeting immediately - I did not "lie" about it.[5][6] An editor of integrity would immediately strike such a glaring blunder of this magnitude and distaste, and I would again ask that editors refrain from commenting further before actually reading through the discussion (not skimming) and clicked on the diffs. I understand it is extremely long and involved, so nobody would think less of you should you choose not to read through it, and therefore not attempt to offer an uninformed opinion on my fate. Editors are welcome to suggest unfavorable outcomes, but rubbernecking and spouting off a few bytes of random text is dreadfully poor form. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I misspoke; what I meant to say or refer to is what Floquenbeam noted on HT's talkpage (User talk:Hidden Tempo#Thoughts that might break the block review logjam):"HT was topic banned from politics earlier this year, and created a sockpuppet to continue editing in the politics area, and then, when caught, pretended not to know this was wrong. It is simply not possible that he didn't know that was wrong": [7] (bolding in original). -- Softlavender (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose unblock without indefinite topic ban - To me, the clearest indication of the problematic nature of this user is what happened the last time they were topic-banned. On 2 December 2016, Bishonen imposed an AP2 topic ban. Between that date and 2 July 2017, the length of the topic ban, Hidden Tempo made a grand total of 63 article-space edits, along with a ban-evading sockpuppet. That is not indicative of a user who has, or who intends to, learn anything and improve their behavior during a topic ban by constructively and substantially contributing in other, non-problematic topic areas. Indeed, immediately upon the ban's time-limited expiration, they returned to tendentious, combative editing in the same topic area. There are several million other topics on Wikipedia to contribute to besides ones related to American politics after 1932, and if this user is truly interested in contributing to Wikipedia as opposed to pushing a single political POV, they should take a year or so to edit those other topics, learn how to work constructively with other users and then ask for the restrictions to be lifted based on that new track record. If they have no interest in other topics, then they are not really here to build a collaborative Internet encyclopedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unblock, but if unblocked must be with indefinite topic ban - per NorthBySouthBaranof. I find the explication of the editor's behavior while under a TB a convincing argument. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I've altered my vote above based on HT's comments in this thread. I don't think this is an editor we really need here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Unblock for time served – This block was justified by edit-warring on a content dispute regarding Stephen Miller, wherein the blocked editor asserted WP:BLPVIO to repeatedly remove some phrasing, while others disagreed. Meanwhile the disputed text at that article has been removed/reworked into a neutral statement, so that the warring is moot. An indef block is unnecessarily WP:PUNITIVE. Arguments for indeffing rely heavily on past sanctions and do not take into consideration the numerous positive contributions by the blocked editor and his consensus-seeking attitude demonstrated in talk page conversations. Given that a month has elapsed, I suggest an immediate unblock for time served, with no strings attached. Naturally, future editor behaviour will remain under scrutiny, especially in the AP2 domain. — JFG ^talk 10:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are not a prison sentence. Time served indicates that the block has served its purpose. HT, as numerous people have pointed out, has given no indication he will not continue to be disruptive in the AP area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose unblock - This user has given no indication that they are here to improve the encyclopedia and conduct themselves collegially. I am familiar with their reprehensible history of talk page participation[8][9][10][11] but was not familiar with the sockpuppetry. That, and the well-documented personal attacks, BLP violations[12], single purpose POV pushing, edit warring[13], tendentiousness[14], and dishonest abuse of policies[15] convince me that Hidden Tempo should be limited to read-only status on this project.- MrX 12:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Question/Comment - Would someone be so kind as to point out the policy or guideline that indicates that a 10 month editing history in a topic area (in this case - post-1932 American politics) is some how not relevant? I can't find anything. What I do see in this unblock request is a single administrator, out of the close to a dozen who have commented, suggest the pattern of editing just prior to the 7 month Tban is "stale". If there is no policy/guideline indicating a 10 month history (which seems to be continuing within 30 day of a 7 month topic ban being lifted) is too long, then it seems a whole lot of text in this appeal seems to be devoted to a false narrative. CBS527^Talk 16:35, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Previous behavior is relevant when it shows a continued pattern. I don't see that. I see an editor who was blocked for referring to a politician's trustworthiness ratings as "feeble" on a talk page, for BLP, because that precise wording wasn't in the source, learning from that that text not directly supported by the source is a BLP vio. And that's exactly how we hope a block will work, the editor will learn what's allowed and what's not allowed.

Then I see them taking that lesson and applying it to Stephen Miller, where they removed text not directly supported by the source from the article page, and getting blocked for that. So, add BLP text without proper sourcing and you'll get blocked; remove BLP text without proper sourcing and you'll get blocked - I don't know what we hope the editor will learn from that. D.Creish (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Cbs527: I don't think that anyone is saying that 10-month-old edits can never be considered when weighing sanctions. The issue is this: several editors have pointed to Hidden Tempo's behavior 7+ months ago as justification for the recent block that HT received, but HT was already blocked for that past behavior. Unless HT did something after returning from their block/TBAN to justify a new sanction, then the new sanction is unjustified. If MastCell would care to provide evidence, in the form of diffs, that justifies new sanctions, then HT's block history could be taken into account when deciding what sanction is appropriate. But a user can't be blocked once for some particular conduct, serve their time, and then upon returning to editing, be blocked again for the very same previous conduct. They have to do something new to justify a new sanction. To me, the amazing thing is that MastCell has refused to provide diffs justifying the new sanction, and that it's taken this long for an evidence-free sanction to come under review. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the sixth time you’ve posted this here in a touch over a day. The best result of repetition here is that other editors will ignore you. Further, your claims that MastCell did not provide evidence is simply false. Objective3000 (talk) 20:26, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but Thuc disregards the fact that sanctions escalate with repeated violations, as they indicate that previous prophylaxis was not preventive. To be candid, I find this kind of self-serving, since Thuc himself has more than one American Politics sanction under his belt and has a kind of vested interest in obscuring the escalating blocks thing. SPECIFICO talk 21:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a bit SPECIFICO, coming from someone with their own prodigious block history, and edit warring using BLP as a pretext - the same thing HT was just blocked for - only with far more dubious pretext [16][17]. -Darouet (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Darouet:Of all the dumb places to launch an irrelevant and false ad hominem, this takes the cake. I don't know who else you've smeared here but you need to remove your gratuitous (and false and off-topic) references to me here and now. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 02:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you leave yet another note on yourmy talk page? -Darouet (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a very interesting point, User:Cbs527. The single admin I presume you allude to, User:FT2, also doesn't seem to think Hidden Tempo's actions during the 7-month topic ban December 2016—July 2017 matter very much. I'll quote FT2's summary above for you: "HT was blocked and evaded, the block ended on 17 March and his topic-related TBAN ended on 17 June. Between May and end July he edited on other topics, and there is no trace seen of admin discussion, no blocks, 3RR, etc.". FT2 passes rather hastily over Hidden Tempo's sock puppetry during the topic ban, when he used both an account and an IP, and FT2 may not even be aware of Hidden Tempo's pushing at the limits of his topic ban on 25—26 May 2017 ("Between May and end July he edited on other topics, and there is no trace seen of admin discussion, no blocks, 3RR, etc."), which I and others discussed with HT here. I'm not sure whether FT2 is suggesting only disruption after the topic ban had ended in July ought to "count" towards a block. Probably not, though Hidden Tempo himself is insisting it should, with much bolding: "This indefinite block is for an editing pattern post-TBAN in that 1.5 month window.". For my part, I think HT ought to have seen himself as on probation when the topic ban ended in July, especially because of his conduct during the topic ban (socking; editing logged out; using his userpage for ban-violating editing, and then, after I blanked it, posting a link on it to point to the text in the history; attacking me, as so often; and blaming Doug Weller, of all people, for the whole thing, per my link to the discussion above). Instead he continued his tendentious editing after the ban, with CRYBLP wikilawyering like this. Incidentally that link, from 5 August 2017, is one of the links MRX posted above, and a link to the edit warring history in August is another, which hasn't stopped HT from claiming MRX's links are all "pre-topic ban", i.e. from 2016. And now, not to my surprise, HT is bludgeoning this discussion, giving everybody who can't face reading his endless talkpage a useful window into his style of argument. I agree with the block. But if the community decides to convert the block into a topic ban, as was originally suggested by myself, I hope they also take on the specific features I suggested: an indefinite topic ban with an appeal allowed after one year at the earliest. We shouldn't have to look forward to this kind of energy-draining circus once every six months. Bishonen | talk 20:37, 16 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you User:Bishonen, User: SPECIFICO, User:Thucydides411 and User:D.Creish for your response to my question. The responses have help clarify my concern. CBS527^Talk 22:20, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 21:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]
  Not going to respond to every Bishonen claim here, in the hopes that folks will actually click on the diffs and verify if what she says is in fact true. As I had previously stated, nobody would think less of anyone for not educating themselves with the facts of the talk page discussion, and thus recusing themselves from voting/commenting. I don't remember anyone informing me that I may not correct false claims or respond to aspersions in the AN discussion. The 3RR vio (which Bishonen sees as a WP:CRYBLP issue) has been discussed and resolved. The fact that the only diffs editors can find are of pre/mid-TBAN behavior, rather than the alleged behavior for which the block was given, speaks volumes. Instead of showing us diffs of this supposed "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive" editing pattern, a few users, which now includes Bishonen, continue to regress to pre/mid-TBAN diffs. But of course, the pre-TBAN diffs are NOT the reasons for the block, and a first 3RR vio block would have expired long ago. This "circus" could have been avoided if the right thing was done in the very beginning: do not indefinitely block editors without giving a warning, and especially do not do it without diffs (per WP:EXPLAINBLOCK). Thuc got it right: banning editors without evidence (no, a 2016 declined AE appeal and Nfitz's ANI report is not "evidence") and then accusing the editor of being a "time sink"/"time suck"/wasting time when he defends himself is quite Kafkaesque. Hidden Tempo (talk) 21:40, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks from me too, Bishonen. That is helpful. As before this is mainly to explain and clear up any confusion. I saw the May diffs you mention but they didn't seem to show a real issue: you directed HT about his block, he replied that he would follow what you directed. The rest of that thread seems to just reflect HT's anxiety about being punished (regrettable but inappropriate fear of being wrongly blocked or targeted isn't itself blockable). I saw the points you refer to, but they only showed AGF/CIV issues and the one BLP dispute in August: - socking; editing logged out (time served for both or he wouldn't have been back in March); using his userpage for ban-violating editing (links above: warned once, agreed to desist and did so, seems responsive/resolved); after I blanked it, posting a link on it to point to the text in the history; attacking me and blaming Doug Weller (at worst the former is poor judgment in good faith: even blanked/deleted comments can be linked, and we do like users to provide related links for onlookers and as evidence in a dispute. The rest is user-to-user CIV/AGF).

I wonder if it's actually more about the civility/AGF/NPA issues and tendentiousness in user disputes that he is being blocked for, rather than warring? That might be the point of confusion.

So the basis of my comment was that having blocked a user for poor conduct, we don't reblock them for the exact same episode of conduct, unless the conduct continued. I asked more than once for evidence of continuation of his previous conduct; none was given to me. His BLP dispute was uncivil but validly raised and should probably have been addressed once raised, even if the final consensus supported the original text. HT had served his block/TBAN (eventually) both for his actions in 2016 and his evasion in early 2017; unless there was additional behavior since then to show the lessons weren't learned, those are stale. That's why I asked for any evidence that he hadn't learned them - because I could find none. He does lapse far too quickly into CIV/AGF (and said he may well get blocked in future for those, if he doesn't get a grip on them); while CIV/AGF can also be part of TE/EW it isn't the basis of the block. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 07:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Unblock for time served Hidden Tempo was indefinitely blocked for edit warring to remove a questionable interpretation of an opinion article from a BLP and behaving mildly uncivilly in an uncivil environment. He's been blocked for a month which is more than enough. D.Creish (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, D.Creish, but there was nothing questionable about that interpretation, it wasn't a BLP violation, and besides the "mild" incivility ("bud") there was a whooooole bunch of wikilawyering to the nth degree of exasperation. I can't accept your summary. Drmies (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse TBAN with 1 year appeal, oppose unblock without restrictions - After having the misfortune of following this thread over the past couple days, and many things that I don't need to rehash in detail, it's pretty uncontroversial that HT has been an overall time sink, and there's probably been more characters spilled by other talking about HT than he has actually productively contributed to mainspace. But apparently a TBAN is a de facto block anyway, since they have little or no current interest in editing on much else. If that's the case, then fine, an unblock and a TBAN effectively change nothing, and nothing will change in a year upon appeal. But if they can find themselves interested in literally anything else in the world, and find a way to be productive, then they can try it, with hopefully a widespread understanding that the community should be reprimanded if another block comes around, and we set ourselves to this obscene level of debate over someone who, as far as I can tell, has given us no indication that they deserve it. TJW^talk 21:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unblock is my first choice, but my second choice is unblock with indef TBAN on American politics. I was asked to look through the discussion on HT's talk page a while back and I did; I read the whole thing as it was then, and I checked all the diffs provided (the claim that MastCell never provided any diffs to justify the block is straight up bullshit; MC has pointed repeatedly to plenty of evidence and anyone making still making that claim has absolutely no excuse for continuing to push it). I'm convinced that the block was justified, and I've yet to see anything to indicate that the behavior which caused it will not resume. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 23:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]
  MP - I am going to AGF and operate under the assumption that you are offering your completely unbiased, neutral, and objective opinion. However, I noticed that your AP2 edits have the identical overarching theme of MastCell's, MrX's, SPECIFICO's, and Objective3000's AP2 edits, and recently uttered this without a hint of satire or jest, yet you still felt it necessary to cast a !vote anyway. I am offended and irked by that decision. Today, you said this: "the claim that MastCell never provided any diffs to justify the block is straight up bullshit". There is some nuance here. Did he provide diffs to justify his indef? Yes, he linked my 2016 AE appeal of a TBAN and Nfitz's ANI report. What he did NOT do was provide the most critical and relevant diffs: edits that showed a pattern of "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive" editing after the TBAN expired. A couple out-of-place diffs does not satisfy WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. Nobody has been able to find these diffs, including MastCell, which is why so many of us have concluded that they do not exist. Hidden Tempo (talk) 23:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hidden Tempo - "yet you still felt it necessary to cast a !vote anyway. I am offended and irked by that decision." You certainly can't be suggesting that MjolnirPants does not have a right to express their opinion. In case you missed User:Boing! said Zebedee explanation "here"., WP:AN is open to all editors who are not currently blocked to support any solution they wish. Neither you not anyone else can dictate who comments here. You are not helping your cause by continuing to repeat ad nauseam that Mastcell has not provided an explanation to the block or that Mastcell needs to provide post TBan differences. So far you have contributed over 12,000 bytes of text to this AN discussion alone, the large majority of it devoted this point. We all get it, anybody who reads this certainly gets it - You and some other editors think that Mastcell's justification is not enough. Other editors think that it is more than enough for a TBan. Mastcell has clearly provided his justification for the block whether you agree with it or not. I'm certain editors who read this AN will take both opinions into consideration and form their own conclusion. CBS527^Talk 02:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hidden Tempo: I'm sure you are offended and irked by a great many opinions with which you don't agree; this is part of the reason that led to your block in the first place. As to your reading of my editing history: you're cherry picking edits that support your preferred narrative. As to the specific diff of mine that you provided: if you disagree with it, or (god forbid) think it ridiculous in any way, then I'm quite sure that's evidence of a very different reason to indefinitely ban you from editing. Also, stop responding to everyone who doesn't !vote your way. It's not very helpful. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Unblock with previous topic ban re-instated per Only In Death and a few others. Indef is overkill. -- ψλ ● ✉ 00:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Unblock without conditions - it's remarkable that a single instance of edit warring after months of good behaviour from an editor with a poor history could justify an indefinite ban, and it's dismaying that the ban has stayed in place for this long. Cjhard (talk) 02:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unblock - This is a user who would better serve Wikipedia as a reader -- their time as a beneficial contributor has passed. They have fought the process every step of the way: Bishonen offered an incredibly reasonable topic ban/unblock proposal which, remarkably, was denied. Hidden Tempo has not outright taken responsibility for all the reasons he found himself blocked nor has he presented their post-unblock plans to the community. For those reasons, I cannot even support an unblock with a tban.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 08:13, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo 18:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  TGS, I've already responded to this claim multiple times, so I would direct you to those replies. The takeaway is: I cannot "outright [take] responsibility for all the reasons" (a "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive" post-TBAN editing pattern) if the blocking administrator can not or will not provide diffs showing this editing pattern. I have outlined my post-unblock plans in my UBR (did you read it or just skip to the "opinion voicing" part?) and I've addressed each alleged block reason in a general sense. However, all of us are being asked to critique the Emperor's new clothes. Unsurprisingly, many editors aren't letting the absence of diffs and facts stand in their way of having an opinion and sounding off, here. A correlation has emerged between how the community votes, and whether or not they've noticed that MC has not provided the specific blockable post-TBAN diffs that we have repeatedly tried (unsuccessfully) to pry from MC. If we see these diffs, and they show what MC claims they show, I will not only admit that I'm a terrible person/disruptive/activist editor (and any other awful things contained in the diffs), but I will shout it from the rooftops. Only after we see the diffs, though. Hidden Tempo (talk) 13:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you want to argue at such length to avoid a, in comparison to the scope of the project very narrow, topic ban makes me consider whether you are actually here to build an encyclopedia, or here to argue politics. TJW^talk 23:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, the "Trial by Water" doctrine of jurisprudence. "The fact that you're protesting your innocence proves you're guilty." Or we could use its closely related cousin: "By not admitting your guilt, you're proving your lack of remorse." -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are currently 60,000 articles within the scope of US politics, many of which are not covered under the proposed TBAN. There are currently well more than five million articles. Do the WP:CALC. I don't care about innocence; I care much more about any indication that they're actually here to build an encyclopedia. TJW^talk 01:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't care about innocence." Then what are you doing posting here? We aren't pondering whether HT's interests are sufficiently broad. We're discussing whether the evidence warrants sanctions. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor is a noticeboard a courtroom. No one has a right to edit here, we are allowed to contribute on the sufferance of the WMF and its designees, the en.wiki community, which can set up whatever standards it wants to weed out undesirable editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This noticeboard, when used for this purpose, has testimony, requires evidence, and produces findings of guilt or innocence. It is (or should be) grounded in longstanding principles of fairness and justice. That's close enough to a courtroom to make "this is not a courtroom" a very dubious statement, especially when made without any policy or even good reasoning to back it up. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the comment above about Trial by Water. This is an appeal of not only the sentence but the finding of guilt. Since it was opened by an admin I assume it's a legitimate appeal. Therefore it cannot presume guilt, and degree of remorse cannot be a factor. Making it so unfairly ties the defendant's hands. I'm not taking a position in this case, only voicing a narrow objection to comments like those of Timothyjosephwood above. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It can presume whatever it wants, as it's not the application of Anglo-American jurisprudence, it's a Wikipedian determination of consensus, a very different thing. There's no "defendant", not "prosecutor", no "judge" and no "trial", and as long as people keep thinking of it using that analogy, they're going to be confused about what's going on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll continue thinking of it that way. It's worked fairly well for many centuries of Western civilization. Beats hell out of mob rule, fancy words for it notwithstanding. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your choice, of course, but perhaps you should bear in mind that the Anglo-American Common Law system is not the only one, nor is it the oldest -- and I'm not talking about Trial by Water or Trial by Fire. Other cultures see value in their systems as well. Here, we too have a different system, the communal determination of consensus, and although it may superficially appear to be similar to Common Law, it really is a different animal, and it is vary decidedly not "mob rule" – which is, by the way, the very same canard applied to direct democracy by the vested interests who felt threatened by it. So, if you find yourself making these same kinds of objections to consensus discussions in the future, you might consider that your view of the system could be part of the problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas of fairness, rules of evidence and a concern for innocence or guilt in judicial proceedings aren't some quirk of the Anglo-American Common Law system. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You honestly think that rules of evidence are the same across every system of law? Or that concepts of what is and isn't "fair" are the same? Or that some systems aren't much more concerned with the safety and well-being of the community than they are with what happens to an individual? I'm not promoting these things, or disagreeing that the Anglo-American system is a good one, but you really should disabuse yourself of the notion that its concerns are universally shared.

Here on Wikipedia, while we're obviously concerned about being fair to an editor under scrutiny, there have been plenty of times where "the patience of the community has been exhausted" and editors have been banned even when by a strictly legal standard, the evidence presented may not have been sufficient for some an outcome -- and that's because the good of the encyclopedia and the ability of the collective editorship to contribute without being unduly hassled outweigh the "rights" of the individual editor ("rights" in scare quotes because, in fact, no one has any right to edit here). You can certainly say that you disagree with the way things are being handled in this discussion, but when you draw a comparison with Common Law to make your complaint, you're almost always going to be disappointed, because that system is simply not our system. It's not set up that way, it's not meant to approximate that system, it's something else entirely, with only superficial similarities to Angle-American law (which is understandable considering that we're English Wikipedia, and the vast majority of us live under Common Law).

Anyway, no more on this from me, you're obviously set in what you think and I'm clearly not going to convince you otherwise. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Really? You honestly think that rules of evidence are the same across every system of law?" Nowhere did I say that. You're attacking a straw man. The precise rules of evidence vary, but every decent judicial system has rules of evidence. In this thread, I see a total mess. What's the evidence? What are the rules governing what evidence is admissible? Is the fact that the accused tries to rebut accusations itself allowed to be used as evidence against the accused? Apparently it is, in more than a few people's thinking. This process is a total joke.

You're trying to argue, essentially, that we don't need any standards when dealing with HT. We can have a completely arbitrary process and that's fine, because we're not implementing Common Law. Nobody said we have to implement Common Law here - just that we need some basic standards of fair process. In practice, your view is bound to lead to sanctions becoming a tool to ban editors who are unwanted - perhaps for political reasons, perhaps for petty personal reasons - rather than editors who actually damage the project. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but your synopsis of my argument is totally and completely wrong, which means you've wound up putting words in my mouth that I never said, never meant, and that cannot possibly be squeezed out of any of my statements. I have never written or even thought that Wikipedia consensus discussions "don't need any standards" -- who could possibly think such a patently absurd thing? What I have said, repeatedly, is that you are trying to apply the standards of our legal system to a discussion which is something else entirely, something which has its own, quite different, standards of process, fairness, and judgment. You don't like those standards, and you think the system is broken, I get that, and I disagree almost entirely. So we can agree to disagree, but I'll thank you not to repeat such a gross mischaracterization of my argument again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point. HT, who has only the barest of interactions with me in the past, has suggested in his reply to my !vote that my !vote shouldn't count because I made basic, factual statements about communism and Antifa, that just so happen to contradict views commonly held by individuals of HT's political affiliation. That is personalizing things to a -frankly- ludicrous degree. There were further personal comments made about me by HT on their talk page, but fortunately(?), they felt it would be more prudent to erase then than to allow them to be read by the wider community, here. And that's just me. I've not read through this entire thread, but I shudder at the thought of the sorts of things HT has probably said about users who've been in conflict with them more regularly in the past. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose unblock HT was given the gracious offer of TBAN with unblock, and went for "all or nothing". So nothing it is. Jytdog (talk) 01:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unblock I'm as uninvolved in this as it is possible to be. I have read the entire discussion on the talk page, and the linked material, and I support the block. The partisan, ad hominem argumentation and the relentless, copious, endless wikilawyering are astonishing. Implying that editors with disparate opinions should not have their opinions "counted" is brazen, I'll grant you, but utterly unacceptable. The bludgeoning replies to commenters here are just continuation of a seemingly insatiable need to argue and "refute" every single point over and over again. Sanctions short of an indef block have been tried, and are followed by instant recidivism (or evaded). This kind of tendentious editing is what can make some areas of wikipedia such unpleasant places at times, and we would be far better off without it. -- Begoon 02:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Byte count: In case you were wondering, as of this writing there are now 220,000 bytes of text devoted to this on HT's talkpage, and 140,000 bytes of text devoted to this here on AN. Mostly, in my opinion, due to HT's endless (and endlessly wordy) bludgeoning and wikilawyering and refusal to drop the stick and observe the first law of holes. Softlavender (talk) 07:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If we're doing byte counts, the more relevant counts are number of bytes by HT and number of bytes by others. People can't comment in large numbers and at length in these threads and then use the length of the resulting threads against the defendant; it defies both logic and principle. I counseled HT against BLUDGEON in this thread, but that was more realpolitik pragmatism than principle. In this situation, dropping the stick means walking away from Wikipedia editing; we are not discussing a trivial content issue. As far as I can tell, HT would accept the indefinite topic ban, so the best way to stop the growth of this thread is to close this appeal ASAP with that result. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The discussions on both pages are only as large as they are because of HT's continued disruptiveness and lack of cooperation, so there's no point in dissecting how much participation is uniquely his. Additionally, nowhere else on AN or ANI, in my immediate recollection, have I seen comments/rebuttals from the blocked editor being replicated on the AN unblock discussion. Lastly, it is not your place to either speak for HT or try to direct the outcome of this discussion. Softlavender (talk) 08:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Under the current rules or lack thereof, one man's disruptiveness is another man's vigorous self-defense. Indef me for reasons that I perceive to be unfair and see how much cooperation you receive from me. I assume the same is true for you. I see no consensus here that HT's behavior in this appeal has been disruptive, so nobody can fairly state that as anything more than their opinion, clearly identified as such. In fact, doing so could reasonably be called disruptive. Lastly, I speak for no one but myself, and I tend to respond negatively to lectures about my "place". ―Mandruss ☎ 08:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Close ASAP because HT would accept an indefinite topic ban? Surely not, Mandruss. I did propose such a topic ban to him on my single admin authority, as a commutation of the indefinite block; HT had two weeks to accept that offer, and did not. This AN review should run an appropriate length of time, whether or not people like the amount of bytes it's generating. If it doesn't, HT could reasonably complain forever more (and vigorously) of frontier justice. A weekend is not an appropriate length of time IMO, as it's pretty common from what I've seen that people don't edit during the weekend. Please keep this open for at least the full Monday in all timezones. Stopping the growth of the thread can't be our foremost goal here. That it's open doesn't mean everybody has to keep talking, but people who haven't been heard from should have a little more time. That said, I don't think Mandruss was trying to direct the outcome of this discussion — merely giving their opinion, like everybody else. Bishonen | talk 08:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• In case it isn't obvious, my summation of the byte counts was not in order to request, or even imply a request, to close this thread anytime soon. It was to quantitatively portray how much time and attention the community has spent on this one user these past six weeks. Softlavender (talk) 08:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Softlavender: If the comment wasn't meant as a another criticism of HT's degree of participation in his own appeal, my apologies for misinterpreting it.
  Bish: Fair enough. So we'll stop with the talk about byte counts and about a quick close. Although you didn't address it, I still think we should refrain from accusations of BLUDGEON when an indef block is at stake. I think your last sentence should go without saying; I lack the authority to direct the outcomes of discussions, and Softlavender knows that. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support unblock, support TBAN of 1-6 months. I've been reading this thread for some time and hadn't made up my mind until recently. HT was blocked after repeatedly reverting at Talk:Stephen_Miller_(political_advisor) and invoking BLP to justify the reverts. I don't think HT should have edit warred while invoking BLP - something they acknowledged above. However some of the editors here asking to Ban or Topic Ban HT - for instance Only in Death, Volunteer Marek, and SPECIFICO above - have themselves invoked BLP in recent memory to edit war with far more dubious justifications ([20],[21],[22],[23],[24]). In HT's case, they opposed an addition [25] that links Miller's comments to the far right. I tend to agree with Marek that the content should (or at least could) be added, though other editors have pointed out that the BLP concern isn't simply nonsense. For instance in that discussion, HT recommended that if the content be added, Miller's response be included. That's totally reasonable. Otherwise, HT has been generally civil (given the toxic environment on these pages), and has repeatedly and productively contributed to compromises, for instance at Talk:Dismissal_of_James_Comey. The reason I think HT should be topic banned for some defined period is that they should have some experiences editing outside of American politics, which is a not a healthy place to learn how to edit. -Darouet (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC) Based on Darwinian Ape's comment below, I'm withdrawing my suggestion that HT should be topic banned. I don't think a single person has attempted to demonstrate that HT's BLP concerns were invalid, and given the total absence of comment on that question - which is the center of this whole discussion - every vote to block or topic ban looks like mob vengeance over HT's political views. I'm not going to support that.-Darouet (talk) 21:34, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Ha, removing one sentence which wasnt in the source as quoted and which alleged criminal activity on the part of a living person is 'dubious justification'? I believe you can take that argument and stuff it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Ha." If by "stuffing it" you mean linking the source, sure, I can do that [26]. Note that the wording and sense of the source were conveyed exactly in the content you removed, yet then, and now still, you erroneously claim they don't. You edit warred over this and are now asking HT to be TBANed for something you've done yourself. -Darouet (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. The quoted text was not in the source period. 'the wording and paragraph sense are conveyed exactly' is not sufficient. 2. The text was in itself, false. It stated he 'admitted giving false testinmony', which is a crime, not the actual situation, which was Clapper admitted giving information that later turned out to be erroneous. That you (and the person who inserted the material) cannnot see why that is a problem in relation to the BLP policy is your issue, not mine. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only in Death, I think your inability to grasp this simple point - that you don't even read a source, edit war while erroneously claiming a BLP vio, and then ask to ban HT for edit warring over somewhat more legitimate BLP concerns - reflects very poorly upon your arguments here generally.

1. The source [27]: "Mr. Clapper has admitted giving Congress on March 12, 2013, false testimony regarding the extent of NSA collection of data on Americans..."

The content you removed: They also wrote that given James Clapper's "false testimony regarding the extent of NSA collection of data on Americans," and...

Do you not see the exact correlation between those words in the source, and what is quoted in the content you removed? As to 2-3., calling BLPvio on content attributed to Binney and McGovern about Clapper admitting to false testimony, when Clapper stated "my response was clearly erroneous—for which I apologize,"[28] is as thin as it gets. Again, you pulled this worse than HT did, and now you'd like to ban them, but are not suggesting anything similar for yourself. -Darouet (talk) 17:20, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I am glad we have clarified you do not understand the difference between giving false testimony and giving testimony which turns out to be erroneous. I have explained twice now. You do not get a third time. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, what happened to "The quoted text was not in the source period."? -Darouet (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Darouet:, when you say "...some of the editors here asking to Ban or Topic Ban HT - for instance Only in Death, Volunteer Marek, and SPECIFICO above...", you seem to have dragged VM's name through the mud without taking the time to check. "An accusation without any diffs", one might be tempted to say. VM has not posted "above" anywhere in this thread. As far as I can tell, VM has not commented on HT's block and (potential) topic ban anywhere at all. Why would you assume that he had commented here? Or worse, why would you say he had, knowing that he hadn't? --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Was wondering if anyone would notice. Volunteer Marek  19:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: Thank you for that important correction. I was thinking of Marek because they were involved in two of the discussions HT was heavily involved in before getting blocked (here and here), one of which led to HT's block. @Volunteer Marek: I'm sorry for wrongly dragging your name in here and hope you'll accept my apology. I've struck your name in my comment (showing that I made the comment but was incorrect to do so). -Darouet (talk) 20:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose any action - User has not demonstrated anything to suggest they are anything but WP:NOTHERE. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 15:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unblock entirely - to be clear, my opinion is that Hidden Tempo should remain indefinitely blocked. I mentioned in an earlier comment that WP:NOTTHEM was in play here, but at that time HT had not commented in this thread and I had not taken much time to review the situation. Although HT made a very elegant unblock request appearing to explain the reasons for the block and how they would avoid those behaviours if unblocked, all of their commentary since then has been wikilawyering about how MastCell's block had no justification and was improper. As Awilley pointed out in a comment above, MastCell explained the block at the time of blocking, and has explained further in incredible detail the justification for their action. Repeating the disruption that led you to a long block and topic ban so soon after that ban is lifted does show a pattern of recidivism, and if HT's belief is not that their behaviour needs to change but that the block is simply improper, then they don't understand what this block is about and they shouldn't be editing here until they get it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As I understand an indefinite block, it can be lifted at any time, should the party provide assurance that what led to the block will no longer be an issue going forward. This user does not appear to acknowledge wrongdoing and instead blames the blocking administrator for a wrongful action, which is plainly an accusation without merit. The removal o this one user from the politics articles has reduced the tension dramatically, in my opinion. Things are still testy at times, even heated, but the sustained rancor has gone down a few notches. ValarianB (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unblock - and support topic ban in the event that they are unblocked. Enough editor time wasted on someone trying to wikilawyer their way out of what was obviously a reasonable block. I endorse what others (especially softlavender, jytdog, and Valarian) have already written above. Fyddlestix (talk) 21:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment edit:Support unblock I have reviewed the whole discussion in HP's talk page, and read through the comments here, and it is unfortunate that I have to conclude this proceeding is not being governed by logic, reason or evidence, but by -conscious or unconscious- partisanship. It is no surprise that most who support sanctions fall on the opposite side of political spectrum as HT, while most who support "no sanctions" are on HT's political camp. I see above me, lots of comments on how HT is NOTHERE and he is disruptive and such, what I don't see is someone providing answers to the only impartial and detailed review of the block by FT2 I will copy the most prominent part of their review here:

;As an uninvolved admin:

1. Is there more to this or other evidence claimed to suggest bad editing, apart from his involvement during 2 - 6 August on Steve Miller's page? (meaning since March 2017 when his block ended)
2. Has any formal or focused discussion taken place anywhere about the user's conduct any time since 17 March 2017, apart from this thread?
3. Has the BLP issue he was concerned about ever been calmly looked at (to determine if better solutions exist or if the BLP claim is an obvious bad-faith game), or is it basically "the loudest voice determines Wikipedia's view"?

And FT2 continues that we "need these as diffs or thread links, not vague claims or pointing fingers at old conduct from 2016 and a block evasion more than 5 months ago." (emphasis mine)None of the editors above has provided anything to answer the questions posed by FT2, instead they continued with the same vague statements, and when HT tried to respond to these comments and condemnations, they complained that it was WP:BLUDGEON without a shred of empathy towards HT and how frustrating this must be to him. My conclusion of this is unless someone bring clear evidence that this user was being tendentious after his block ended, he should walk free, so to speak. I don't think that will happen though, I think in these forums, you live if you have enough friends and HT doesn't have that. And the sheer size of the discussion will deter anyone who is willing to impartially review it. I am absolutely certain that if this same block was applied to a user with whom most of the pro-sanction editors here are friends with -or politically agree with- they would be shouting "bad block" and some would even want the head of the admin responsible. Darwinian Ape ^talk 20:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)I didn't !vote, because I don't believe it will make any difference, but here's to nailing colors to the mast. Darwinian Ape ^talk 01:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The last block I supported was for an outspokenly liberal editor who is as close to an "enemy" as HT could have here, so you can take your bad-faith speculation about my ulterior motives (and those of everyone else who's supported the block) and shove it. I find it beyond reprehensible that you would sit here and accuse an entire group of people of gaming this noticeboard for the purpose of pushing their political views into WP just because you couldn't check off a box on a list that pretty much every other admin involved says doesn't need to be checked. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read that as an outright accusation of gaming, which is a conscious and deliberate act. In fact it includes the words "or unconscious". Possible or probable straw man (which can also be unconscious, so I'm not accusing you of bad faith either.) ―Mandruss ☎ 23:22, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mandruss: When someone is accused of working to ban an editor simply due to that editor's political views, that is -in my opinion and I would suspect in the opinion of a large number of other editors- the same thing as an accusation of gaming and POV pushing. It's gaming because the accused is supposedly using WP behavioral-addressing systems to further a large-scale content dispute (the dominance of right-wing vs left-wing editors, and thus edits), and it's POV pushing because said content dispute (right-wing vs left-wing politics) is clearly a POV issue; regardless of one's political affiliations, any reasonable editor must acknowledge that both liberalism and conservatism are defensible political views; there's no "correct" answer. Such an accusation, without a shred of evidence, is also unambiguously a personal attack. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Darwinian Ape - Did you read through the this discussion and check the links provided? Probable not, or you would have notice that FT2's (not TF2) questions have been answered (and links provided) and FT2 is the only administrator out of roughly a dozen who has this opinion.

In almost every response HT has made in this WP:AN discussion HT has insinuated (or insist depending how you look at it) that only post-TBan differences can justify this block . He is quite mistaken. There is no time limit on when previous infractions can be used both by precedence and guidelines. Remarkably, the WP:APPEAL is one of them. "Wikipedia blocks are usually warnings only, and once over and learned from, unless repeated, they are in the past." (my bold). See "Abuse of the unblocking process".. With no disrespect to the editors who feel that there has not been a continuing problem with HT's edits (and who, for the most part, understand the guidelines), the large majority of editors feel that there is sufficient evidence for a block or TBan, not because of your rather insulting statement, "I am absolutely certain that if this same block was applied to a user with whom most of the pro-sanction editors here are friends with -or politically agree with- they would be shouting "bad block" and some would even want the head of the admin responsible." but because they actually took the time to read and understand this process. CBS527^Talk 23:48, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, screw you I got mild dyslexia.^^ And secondly, yes I did read the whole discussion on HT's talk. What I see here is an editor who has violated policy in his past, granted a second chance, then went months presumably without any policy violations -which is where we need evidence because if it's not the case and HT was tendentious/disruptive after his ban expired, I wouldn't be objecting to his indef- and what we have is an edit war over a content which HT believed to be a BLP violation after months of, again presumably, good behavior. On top of that, whether the BLP concern was valid or not, we have HT acknowledging his mistake and his promise not to engage in edit wars even if there is a BLP violation, which is the wise thing to do regardless. In light of the evidence provided to us, I don't believe HT needed to be indeffed. Of course a block of some length would be understandable, I would go with a harsh TROUT/admonishment but an indeff block is way too harsh, it goes against the spirit of Wikipedia. As for people who take offense at my comments, I am not accusing anyone of GAMEing, merely suggesting that perhaps you should pause a bit and reflect when you find yourself on the side of the majority, because confirmation bias is a plague to all of us and we all need to keep it in check from time to time.(Note that I'd be shouting with them if the same kind of block happened to any one of them.)Darwinian Ape ^talk 01:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 01:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Cbs527 - I'll only address this remark: "HT has insinuated (or insist depending how you look at it) that only post-TBan differences can justify this block . He is quite mistaken." I'm not sure if I've been unclear with the point that many of us have been making, or if our wires were crossed somehow, but that's not at all what I have been trying to communicate. The point is that MastCell claims the indef is for "tendentious, hyper-partisan, agenda-driven disruptive editing," and tacks on the "edit-warring" at the end (note that the editors I edit warred with, who were reinstating the contentious material without consensus received no warnings or sanctions). MastCell stated that "the behaviors in question [tendentious, hyper-partisan...etc.] appear refractory," indicating that this editing pattern has continued after the TBAN expired. So it's either a) MC is blocking me for something I've already done time for, b) MC is indef blocking me exclusively for an alleged first-time 3RR offense, or c) MC is indeffing me for post-TBAN edits, for which he is withholding diffs. In all three cases, the block is invalid and should have long-expired for a first-time alleged 3RR offense in the process of abiding by WP:BLPREMOVE. Hidden Tempo (talk) 00:58, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cbs527. HT didn't make the "insinuation" and you have misquoted it anyway. That was my review observation, and the omitted part is the condition: we need evidence that the behavior is current/continuing without which old conduct issues from many months ago are stale. I have no prior knowledge of the editor or situation and reviewed when pinged as a completely uninvolved admin. This has been a Wikipedia norm for a long time - we reblock for continuing behavior (emphasis on evidence needed that it is continuing), because blocks exist to protect the project not to punish. So I asked for evidence of the claimed conduct. When I'm shown a diff that shows "hyper partisan" editing since his last block/TBAN lapsed and he returned to editing (and I don't mean his poor civility/AGF issues or the BLP matter on Steve Miller), then things will be different. Right now I see nothing like that, and no diffs showing it in any replies. The closest attempt to show actual issues post block/TBAN is by Bish (in this thread) and to me, they show a single warning by an admin which was agreed without hesitation and the issue not repeated, a BLP issue that may well have been legit and per policy should have been addressed properly, and civility/AGF issues. Nothing else (so far). If evidence exists that doesn't just refer to his past 2016 issues and evasion (both served) but shows he is acting as a "hyper partisan warrior" then I'm open to it, but so far - no diffs. No evidence. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• FT2, you say "The closest attempt to show actual issues post block/TBAN is by Bish (in this thread) and to me, they show a single warning by an admin which was agreed without hesitation and the issue not repeated, a BLP issue that may well have been legit and per policy should have been addressed properly, and civility/AGF issues. Nothing else (so far)." The legitimacy or otherwise of the BLP issue doesn't need addressing further by me, I've said what I think of it. But I believe you have misunderstood what happened here in late May, and what HT quite insistently tried to do at that point. Your description of the May episode as "a single warning by an admin which was agreed without hesitation" is... I'm biting my tongue here... misleading. The subject of the thread is HT's userpage. Since you're an admin, please take a look at the deleted history of the userpage. If you still don't think these edits were topic ban evasion, which was compounded by an attempt to get round my blanking and my edit summary here, or that this statement by HT was misleading, or that this attack on me was unwarranted, or that HT's claim to only be doing what Doug Weller had told him to do was disingenuous, then fine, I'm done. Apologies to non-admin readers who can't see the deleted userpage diffs. Bishonen | talk 20:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

@Bishonen - thank you, and thank you also for "biting tongue". This was the sort of thing I was hoping someone would post when I asked for diffs. Indeed I hadn't seen those as I didn't check deleted diffs and nobody else said they existed. I figured anything improper he did, requiring admin deletion, would be reflected more clearly in formal t/p posts that weren't admin deleted, or in logs, t/p posts by others, hinted by his contribs, or in t/p text he himself removed. There were no links in the discussion. If I'd seen them I might still not have seen their significance in the absence of comments by the blocking admin or someone else. The comment that remained didn't convey the issue fully to me, probably because it was directed at HT not page newcomers, and wasn't disputed, I guess. I agree this was clearly in breach of the TBAN and correctly handled, and that HT should have understood (and possibly did understand?) that it was problematic and/or that he was in breach.

That said, I'm still finding myself looking at the aftermath and what we learn of his behavior and likely future conduct if unblocked. He got a warning, he agreed not to do it, and it didn't happen again. Despite being blocked again, and for 5 or 6 weeks now, it still never repeated. What does this show? To me, that he learned when warned, didn't repeat, and changed. I ask myself what that says about the need to protect the project from this user, and what it says about him trying to do better. (He seems responsive if he feels he had a fair hearing, perhaps?)

That sort of responsiveness is what really comes over to me, again and again. For example, see his multiple edits to fix posts that might come across badly, once he understood they could have that effect. Here are the kinds of diffs I saw, that show why I felt he was trying harder to listen and work collaboratively (and therefore not incorrigible): clarifying a perception of standards and that he isn't arguing "others do it" or sanctions on others, frank and reasonable admission of mistakes, correcting old edit to remove possible perception of attack/civ, explaining concerns about another editor when asked. Hopefully this goes some way to explaining why we might have reached different perspectives when we looked, and again thank you for the time in looking up those diffs - I know it was a pain to do so. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• User:FT2, with all due respect, I don't recall ever quoting you in this discussion so I don't think I misquoted you. I hesitate to link sections where HT insinuated that only post-TBan differences can justify this block , because HT has already responded that is not what he wanted to communicate and I accept his word on that. If you need, I'll grab one and link to it, but I don't think it is necessary at this point. I was responding to Darwinian Ape's rather uncivil comments, who actual did quote parts of your review. I suspect that was what you were referring to.

Quite frankly, FT2, I, and many others owe you a BIG debt of gratitude for time (and aggravation!) you took to do the review of a rather complex situation. CBS527^Talk 13:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't intend to say much here, because this block had already been reviewed and discussed to death before it was brought to this venue; I've already said my piece, repeatedly, and I'm not a big believer in repeating myself endlessly. That said, HT and his supporters/enablers have taken this discussion on a frankly bizarre detour from reality. They're working hard to create the narrative that this block was somehow unsupported by evidence, a falsehood that I've addressed elsewhere repeatedly (cf. [29]). It should be obvious that, lacking any evidentiary support, a block would not have stood for a month through review at WP:AN/I (the single most public projectspace venue, where I placed and announced the block) and by numerous admins on HT's talkpage, but here we are.

  HT was blocked for edit-warring and violating 3RR on a political article. There is no actual dispute about this; HT has admitted to the edit-warring, so I find the repeated demands for diffs a bit dishonest. You see the game he's playing? He's admitting the edit-warring and asking for leniency points for remorse, but at the same time aggressively disputing the evidence for the block. It's sort of like saying: "Go easy on me: I stole the TV and I know it was wrong—but also, you haven't proven I stole the TV!"

  But I digress. The point is that HT was edit-warring, which is grounds for a block. The question then becomes: a block for how long? This is where admins typically take context into account. HT was blocked in December for a BLP violation; he was then topic-banned from American Politics for 6 months for further disruptive and tendentious editing; he then evaded his topic ban using an IP and a sockpuppet account and got caught; and once his topic ban expired, he nearly immediately resumed combative edit-warring in the same topic area. That pattern of behavior is typically more than sufficient to justify an indefinite block. (In fact, HT has been treated unusually leniently; in many cases, the deceptive sockpuppetry and ban evasion would have resulted in an indefinite block, especially given the absence of any mitigating positive contributions to Wikipedia). He was given a last, last, last chance which he promptly abused. Hence, an indefinite block.

  All of this is clearly supported by appropriate links. All of it is easily verifiable by anyone. And all of it has been detailed, repeatedly, in response to claims by HT and his enablers that the block lacked supporting evidence. Now, one could argue that this evidence does, or does not, justify an indefinite block. But one cannot simply pretend that no evidence exists. Yet that's exactly what HT and his enablers keep doing, here and elsewhere. It is absolutely dishonest, and reflects very poorly on them.

  In terms of an unblock, it's hard to look at HT's postings and see any evidence of real insight, or any reason to think he'll behave differently if unblocked. Read through his talkpage. There's a bit of perfunctory stuff about how he realizes now that edit-warring is wrong, etc. But his real passion is reserved for attacks on me, and secondarily on anyone else who's supported his block. Just looking at today's output, I'm "vile", "elitist", "tone-deaf", etc. I'm bemused that we're seriously considering an unblock request that consists of one part dishonesty (the repeated falsehoods about lack of evidence) and two parts personal abuse against the blocking admin and anyone else who gets in the way.

  Finally, to leave you with a flavor of what we're dealing with, take a look at HT's response when he got caught socking to evade his topic ban: [30]. Somehow, he tries to turn the fact that he was caught socking into an indictment of the person who reported him. I'm not sure what else you need to know. MastCell ^Talk 23:11, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"They're working hard to create the narrative that this block was somehow unsupported by evidence, a falsehood that I've addressed elsewhere repeatedly (cf. 50)." I'm sorry, but you're the one repeating the falsehood. In your original statement about the indefinite block for HT, you accused HT of "edit-warring to repeatedly remove properly-sourced material, using a variety of dubious, WP:BATTLEGROUNDy, or outright specious rationales" but cited exactly one diff. You didn't address why the WP:BLP claims that HT raised were "dubious" or "specious." Afterwards, when asked for diffs to show that HT's editing pattern since returning from the prior topic ban was problematic, you repeatedly stated that you had already provided diffs (which is false), and refused to link to diffs.

This case shows that we need a complete overhaul of how sanctions are handed down. The whole process above makes a mockery of any basic principles of fair judicial process:

1. The evidence has not been presented clearly, and the blocking admin, MastCell, instead of just linking evidence, only links to diffs of themselves claiming to have presented diffs. Normally, the accused has the right to know the evidence being used against them.
2. When HT tries to rebut the accusations made against them, they're accused of WP:BLUDGEONING the conversation. The accused normally has the right to respond to accusations.
3. Many of the people commenting, including admins, are hopelessly involved in this dispute. We need impartial adjudicators who not only have no conflicts of interest, but also no appearance of any conflicts of interest.

I personally resent the idea that this sort of kangaroo court has jurisdiction over disputes on Wikipedia. It's a joke, and we need something better. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand. HT has agreed with my assessment that he was edit-warring and had violated 3RR. Are you now disputing that? Or are you just accusing me of not doing enough to substantiate an action which, after all, he already acknowledged? In any case, I agree with you about one thing: this case does show that we need to overhaul how sanctions are handled. If it takes this much time and effort to deal with one obviously unfit editor—who's pretty much standing on a rooftop waving a red flag that says "I'm unsuited to edit a collaborative encyclopedia"—and his handful of enablers, then we're pretty much doomed. Your accusation of partiality is too ludicrous to deserve comment; there seems to be wide-ranging acknowledgement that HT's behavior is inappropriate, including from many editors and admins whom I don't know from Adam. I don't think conspiracy theories are what we need right now. MastCell ^Talk 00:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are larger and more important issues at play here than one editor's editing behavior. As has always been the case since I've been around, the focus is in the wrong place. If the system is acknowledged to be seriously flawed, the appropriate thing to do is to stop and work to improve the system, but nobody has the time to do that because of the seriously flawed system. That qualifies as group insanity in my book. (If you want others to refrain from mischaracterizing your position, please don't refer to those who hold a different view from yours as "enablers".) ―Mandruss ☎ 01:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"HT has agreed with my assessment that he was edit-warring and had violated 3RR. Are you now disputing that? Or are you just accusing me of not doing enough to substantiate an action which, after all, he already acknowledged?" You're aware that WP:BLP calls for immediate removal of offending material, and for it not to be added back in until it's clear that there is no BLP issue. HT has said that they shouldn't have chosen to remove the material after it was added back in, but their BLP concern wasn't obviously wrong. They had a reasonable concern that defamatory text from an opinion piece was being restated in Wikipedia's voice. Here's how FT2 summarized the issue:

"Right now this thread has a lot more "heat" than "light", not much focus on the core points of conduct and BLP. The main evidence of poor conduct seems to be a finger pointed at a set of blocks 8 months ago that were evaded 6 months ago plus an unsupported claim of continuing tendentiousness without recent diffs, a single 3RR that's been apologized for, and a disputed removal that may or may not have been aiming to fix a BLP vio and may or may not have been in good faith."
— [31]

FT2 specifically asked you for diffs showing that HT's editing has been problematic since returning from a TBAN ("We need these as diffs or thread links, not vague claims or pointing fingers at old conduct from 2016 and a block evasion more than 5 months ago. That would allow a more fair and considered discussion which isn't dominated by 'heat'."), and in your response, you argued that you didn't need to provide diffs ("Saying that he had a 'clean record' since March is like looking at someone who's spent the past 2 years in jail for theft and then stolen a TV the minute he was released, and concluding: 'Hey, he went 2 years without stealing anything!'").

If you'd addressed the BLP issue at the outset, rather than ignoring it, then we might all have been spared these proceedings. Instead, you've come back again and again to tell everyone you provided diffs (which you haven't), instead of just addressing the core point: whether the removals were justified by BLP, or could be reasonably considered to be good-faith attempts to comply with BLP, and whether they are part of a pattern of hyper-partisan, tendentious edit warring since returning from the TBAN.

"Your accusation of partiality is too ludicrous to deserve comment." When an admin is arguing, with a straight face, that "bud" is uncivil, but "You pulled that out of your ass" isn't, then I can't, with a straight face, pretend they're impartial. My capacity for cognitive dissonance runs out somewhere before there. -Thucydides411 (talk) 01:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is not what you should take away from this, MastCell. I've often read admin comments that they're under pressure from all sides when they make executive decisions, and I'm sorry about that. But when you first blocked HT at AN/I, you would have done better to slow down, explain your reasoning, and link more than just one diff [32]. In doing so you might have also explained why this article HT objected to - linking Miller to antisemitism - really presented no legitimate BLP concern. Yes, HT has admitted to edit warring over the content. But really demonstrating HT was CRYBLPing was crucial, because all your subsequent posts about HT's past behavior ([33]) are irrelevant if you shouldn't have blocked them for this edit.

Given all this, you don't help things by calling people who disagree with you "enablers" or "supporters" of HT... you come off looking exactly like the "BATTLEGROUNDy" editor that you say you were correct to block. Is anyone who disagrees with you guilty of being "BATTLEGROUNDy"? Should they expect the same kind of summary justice? Lastly, partisanship is as old as "dim Eden," since you referenced Adam. Maintain you are impartial - if you are sincere that does come across - but to claim that a reference to partiality (in the midst of a massive AN pile-on) amounts "conspiracy theories" is itself ludicrous. -Darouet (talk) 01:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:MastCell please do not cast aspersions against those of us who voted to unblock. I'm not an "enabler" or "supporter" of HT. A major complaint in this ordeal is that you make characterizations against editors without providing diffs. In fact, you've done it again in your statement above - "he nearly immediately resumed combative edit-warring in the same topic area." You need to provide diffs when you make accusations like that. The most troubling point to me is that roughly 30 minutes after you returned from a 1.5 month break you dropped this indef ban and then didn't respond adequately to editors questioning your actions, especially the points raised by uninvolved admin FT2. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I mean by enabling: HT's response, when caught doing something wrong, is to avoid any meaningful acceptance of personal responsibility and instead to attack others. When he was topic-banned, it was the banning admin's fault. When he got caught socking to evade his topic ban, it was someone else's fault. When he got blocked for edit-warring, it was my fault. When a disparate bunch of uninvolved admins affirm that HT's block was reasonable, then it's their fault because they all must be biased and lacking impartiality. And when this process doesn't yield the desired result, it's an indictment of Wikipedia's entire dispute-resolution structure ([34]). HT has found a small handful of people willing to help him avoid taking responsibility and instead to blame anyone and everyone else for the consequences of his actions.

I don't think you're really taking part in that. But frankly, if you're more invested in criticizing how I choose to spend my free time than you are in addressing HT's disruptive editing, then I think it's fair to question your sense of perspective. As for FT2, I did respond, at length, to his concerns, as best I could understand them; see here. More generally, I've tried to stay out of this unblock discussion because HT's strategy is clear: to personalize the discussion by attacking me. If there was any question of how he would respond when a diverse group of uninvolved admins agreed that his block was legitimate, I think the answer is now depressingly clear. MastCell ^Talk 19:38, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:MastCell thanks for the response. I can see better now what you meant. I actually tried to advise HT to let this discussion run its course without responding to all the points, but it went unheeded. OTOH I can understand how they feel, since they feel the premise of the block was unfair to begin with. However at some point the law of holes applies. I didn't mean for my comment about your break to be a criticism of how you spend your free time. For that I apologize. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 20:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]
MastCell continues to make the same mistakes and utter the same falsehoods. Following the same exact flowchart template he's been using for a month: 1) he says I'm not accepting responsibility for the editing behavior for which he refuses to provide diffs, despite my UBR and repeated acceptances of responsibility for the 3RR 2) attempt the "Look at this over here, instead!" sleight-of-diff (linking pre-TBAN/mid-TBAN editing, rather than the "repeated instances" of problematic editing for which I was blocked) to distract from the absence of diffs, 3) utter damaging and demonstrably false claims, and hope nobody notices (never once did I assign fault of the socking to "someone else"[35]), and I also never called into question the AP2 edits of any other admin - just yours. Then, you cite somebody else's diff as part of your strategy to lend credence to what you are saying. Pinging Thucydides411 so he is aware of the egregious dishonesty of this act. Then, you finish with the tired old falsehood that you keep repeating, that YOU are being attacked. And for the nth time, you are not being attacked. Your sanction within the context of your agenda-driven abortion/AP2 editing pattern is what I, and others, have called into question. I explained the difference to you in detail here, which was never moved to the AN board (too long, but the takeaway is that you never provided diffs for what you call "repeated instances [of problematic behavior] despite prior blocks and topic ban") and I addressed your slur of "enablers" for those with whom you disagree. Hidden Tempo (talk) 20:07, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed that MastCell cited my post as an example of HT's behavior. MastCell should strike that from the above.

My objection to this process isn't that it doesn't yield the result I'd like. My objection is that it lacks any of the basic characteristics of a fair process. Evidence hasn't been presented clearly (that's mainly on MastCell and their "enablers," to borrow a term, who haven't taken MastCell to task for refusing to provide evidence), the accusations are presented so vaguely as to be impossible to refute, the accused is told they're WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion when they respond to accusations, and respected members of the community are chiming in to say that guilt or innocence - or even fair process - don't matter. The sanctions process needs a complete overhaul. It needs clear rules that provide for a fair process, and it needs impartial arbiters, which rules out a large fraction of people involved here. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thucydides411, I have some unsolicited free advice for you. There is a chance that my advice is worth more than you're paying for it. Here is my advice: Before you object to the lack of diffs for approximately the 16th time (I lost count), please go to WP:BLOCK and look for a line in there that says you are entitled to receive a diff. If – as I believe you will – you find that the policy does not actually require anybody to provide any diffs before (or after) blocking someone, then please think about whether it's in anyone's best interest to keep insisting that the absence of diffs is a violation of some bureaucratic process.

The intensity and persistence of your efforts to demand procedural justice for a supposedly unrelated account strike my cynical eyes as unusual, and by this point, I doubt that I'm the only cynical editor involved in this discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. The intensity and persistence on one side of this issue is no greater than on the other side. 2. Taking a stand in a situation where one does not have a personal stake is in fact very unusual, and that's an unfortunate reflection on human nature. Add: Oh, on second look I guess that's a suggestion of possible socking or some other bad faith. I'd suggest you strike that. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: I don't see any good advice in your post. I do, however, see an implied threat in your post. I also see an apology for not providing evidence for blocks (who needs standards or fair procedure when we don't like the blocked editor, right?). -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it was good advice. I said that it was free. ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: There's really no point in attempting to get Thucydides411 or Mandruss to re-evaluate their position. They are solidly convinced that this process is "unfair", that the "system is broken", that this is a "kangaroo court" and an example of "mob rule". They adamantly believe that Hidden Tempo is being railroaded because nobody likes him. (I didn't even know who frigging guy was!) These are the kinds of things that are said by died-in-the-wool advocates, true believers who are not going to be swayed by pointing out little things like evidence or policy or even asking them to apply common sense, because they know what they know, and that's the end of it. They really haven't said anything new since their first few comments in this discussion, but have repeated the same tired old tropes again and again and again.

At this point, they're really not much better then trolls in regard to this discussion, and the best thing to do from now on is to entirely ignore them, as there's no point in trying to change the mind of someone whose mind is set on not being changed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was expecting something like that, but I was surprised it hadn't come. Not even close to worthy of the point-by-point rebuttal. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my point has been precisely that evidence should be presented. You're the one who's been arguing that evidence isn't necessary, and that basic principles that make judicial proceedings fair aren't relevant here. If you'd spend half the time you spend attacking me to gather and post diffs, we might actually make some progress. But throughout this enormous thread, the two basic things you'd think would be addressed - evidence showing that HT has continued to edit war in a hyperpartisan way since returning from their TBAN, and an explanation of why HT's BLP concerns were completely unreasonable - haven't been addressed. So yes, I'm convinced that either everyone is too lazy to actually gather evidence, or they've tried to look for it and haven't come up with anything convincing. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you what, you post one diff, one single diff, in which I wrote that "evidence isn't necessary", and I'll donate $100 to the charity of your choice. If you can't post one, then you stop posting on this thread. Deal? (If I were you, I wouldn't take the deal, since I never said that, just like I never said that "we don't need any standards", the last absurd thing you accused me of espousing. You really need to stop making such easily fact-checked statements about other editors in a medium in which everything is visible to everybody.)

As for looking for evidence, I've already seen more than enough to make my !vote, so there's really no point in my expending energy in an attempt to convince you, since I don't think you would be convinced by a signed confession. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BMK, It's not fair to lump Mandruss in with Thucydides like that. Mandruss's few comments here have been logical as far as I have seen...their opinion just differs from yours on some points and happens to align with Thucydides on some points. (Your criticism of Thucydides is on target AFAICT.) ~Awilley (talk) 16:01, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Awilley: Thucydides' and Mandruss' point is straightforward: processes here should be professionalized, evidence should be required and clearly presented, and the accused should have a right to respond to each point. Not everyone's obliged to agree with that, and many don't (I'm not even sure what that would entail). With no prejudice to their position on evidence or procedure, BMK's response above is not only wrong, but one of the most uncivil and overblown I've ever seen from a regular contributor. In that context, your endorsement of it does more to convince me that Thucydides and Mandruss are right about procedure than any argument they've made. -Darouet (talk) 22:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of "uncivil" is odd, to say the least. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: I was just kidding, what you wrote wasn't uncivil. But even if it was, there's really no point in attempting to get [you] to re-evaluate [your] position.[36] After all, what you write is typical of died-in-the-wool advocates, true believers who are not going to be swayed by pointing out little things like evidence or policy or even asking them to apply common sense, because they know what they know, and that's the end of it.[37] Most of your comments above repeated the same tired old tropes again and again and again.[38] Since you're really not much better then [a] troll in regard to this discussion[39] (sic), it's clear the best thing to do from now on is to entirely ignore[40] you.

I would tend not to believe any of that about you, BMK. But if you truly believed that kind of exchange was civil in an editorial room or professional environment, perhaps I would be correct to label you using your own words. At least, as you suggest above, I wouldn't have been uncivil. -Darouet (talk) 16:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So... you weren't kidding?

Look, this argument – that the system is broken and in need of a complete overhaul – gets trotted out in consensus discussions in which the conclusion is heading to a result that is not approved of by the person presenting the argument; I've yet to see it expressed at a time when the editor agrees with the probable consensus. That means it's primarily a rhetorical device, the essential purpose of which is to sway the discussion in the preferred direction.

I'm not saying that our system is perfect, or can't be improved, all I've said is that its standards and procedures are not those of the legal system, and shouldn't be expected to be. In return, my argument have been consistently mischaracterized, words I've never said have been put into my mouth, and absurd ideas I've never espoused have been ascribed to me. I think I have every right to be annoyed by that and get a bit snarky in return. Beyond My Ken (talk)

You began your foray into the discussion about fairness in these proceedings by saying that guilt can be presumed at the outset: "It can presume whatever it wants" (in response to Mandruss' comment that "it cannot presume guilt"). This was in the context of a discussion about whether or not we can use the very fact that an accused editor speaks in their own defense as an argument that they should be blocked. In response to the argument that basic principles of judicial process and fairness require that we not presume guilt and that we allow the accused to respond to accusations, you went into a lecture about how we were being Anglo-centric, and bringing in legal principles which are just special features of Anglo-American Common Law. And in response to the argument that there hasn't been clear evidence presented, you expounded on your belief that the idea of "rights" in these proceedings are irrelevant (in this case, specifically, you were talking about the right of an editor who's being sanctioned to have evidence presented against them): "the good of the encyclopedia and the ability of the collective editorship to contribute without being unduly hassled outweigh the 'rights' of the individual editor ('rights' in scare quotes because, in fact, no one has any right to edit here)." This was the thrust of your digression into a discussion of Common Law - your objection to the idea that basic ideas of procedural fairness that exist in Common Law (and in the Civil Law, by the way) are relevant here.

You added on that you think we have our own standards of fairness and procedure, but when basic standards that would actually be required for fair proceedings are raised, you complain that we're borrowing ideas that are supposedly specific to Common Law (like the right to defend oneself, or the right to see evidence, or a presumption of innocence, or even for evidence to determine the outcome). You pose a vague notion of "community consensus" as an alternative, and given that you've argued against the actual principles that make any judicial proceedings minimally fair, I would be terrified to ever have to submit myself to such a capricious system. Your system is just a recipe for whatever prejudices people harbor to have free reign.

You can donate to whatever charity you'd like. I don't enjoy these games. -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, you have once again grossly mischaracterized my comments, but that's OK because anyone interested can actually read them for themselves and draw their own conclusions, which I'm certain will not be the same as yours.

I once attempted to hat this colloquy with you as a sideshow, but you undid it. Perhaps another editor might consider doing so? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly support unblock, support TBAN - Ok, I've had it and I'm taking a position. Arguments by FT2, Thucydides411, and Darouet are articulate and compelling. Meanwhile I am thoroughly unimpressed by MastCell's comments about enablers and conspiracy theories, which in my mind call his or her judgment into serious question. Other comments in support of the indef appear to be mostly vague accusations of disruptiveness—remarkably, some of them referring to HT's failure to give up and submit soon enough under a system that does not require him to do so. If people want to impose such rules and restrictions, they need to get community consensus for them and get them in writing. HT has been far from the model editor, but I think he should be given some rope outside the AP2 area, with the opportunity to show tangible improvement and appeal the TBAN after a year (or two). This indef block can't be called preventative when nobody knows how HT will behave outside AP2 area. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose unblock - After reviewing this cluster of a situation, I've come to the realization that it's not actually as complicated as it may initially seem. HT's behavior in response to the block quite simply smacks of typical bludgeoning behavior, in which a blocked user unleashes unending torrents upon torrents of paragraphs that somehow always manage to dodge any attempts at justifying the block, while ultimately never adding up to anything other than, "I'm a victim of biased admin abuse". It's certainly no more than 1% of blocked users who actually resort to this behavior, but I've been around long enough to recognize it as a distinct tactic attempted by some. It's, at best, an attempt to use rhetoric to circumvent normal unblock process, but more realistically, it's more akin to throwing a tantrum until you get what you want. We should not reward this behavior, in fact we should not even be humoring it like this. The block has been extensively and repeatedly justified; this user's manipulative behavior well documented. I'd be appalled to see the community actually bend to it at this point. Any support of an unblock in favor of a TBAN is seriously flawed—for one, this user rejected the proposal themselves, instead demanding a complete exoneration. Why would we reduce the sanction if the user themselves continues to refuse to admit wrongdoing? Secondly, a review of this user's contributions makes it obvious that this user doesn't want to offer anything outside of this subject area. Their account is solely dedicated to this subject area. So, what benefit to the project are we purporting to restore by unblocking them with such a TBAN? They've never shown us they're capable or interested in contributing to this project outside of this one problematic area. I half expect this user to continue their bludgeoning with another lengthy paragraph in response to me, citing worn-out and empty rhetorical talking points about "bias" or "lack of evidence" or some other sort of "misconduct". Enough. Let's cut the crap. This user is not worth the effort they're currently expending from the community. Let's deny the unblock request and move forward without this user's drama. Swarm ♠ 06:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think Swarm has summarized this well. In fact, given the accuracy of his statement, I would fully support a site ban. Softlavender (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose unblock. At this point, I'm not seeing that HT has learned anything from this block and has taken on the lessons they need to learn. I might have been fine with an unblock and a TBAN, but at this point, the IDHT behavior has gotten so bad I can't support an unblock at this time. Yes, I've read most of the various threads and comments. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse block (comments on length follow) -- having reviewed the talk page, diffs and this discussion, I endorse the block as within discretion -- when coming off a topic ban, don't return to edit warring -- it is within discretion to block (even if another admin would not, such as FT2 might not), it is further in discretion to make it indef - but indef is often subject to later change -- not infinite. FT2 apparently sees it differently, but that does not make the block unreasonable (nor does it necessarily make FT2 view unreasonable, just different - others disagree, reasonably so, as his analysis hinges on what degree of weight you put on edit-warring and problematic history). As an aside, whatever FT2, might have done, he did not actually grant the appeal -- which also may have been in discretion -- he shared his thoughts - and it is now out of FT2's hands and others' individual hands, as it is now here at AN, in collective hands. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Alanscottwalker - It never was in my hands. I chose not to take it, to ensure a clear perception to HT that I trust the community to decide, reviewed neutrally, could speak neutrally, and remained neutral afterwards. I felt that trust mattered in this case, and I also didn't feel it right to claim to know more than many others with much longer experience who might have seen things I didn't. A bit like NPOV - state the evidence and issues raised, let others see if they agree or not. So I deferred from the start. My concerns such as they are, are mainly about the quality of the blocking admin's adminship and basis of the decision. Although of course I gained a view on HT's conduct it would be just one view of many. I posted a reply to Bishonen above with a few links, that's relevant to the points you mention (diff link for ease), and which may help explain my perspective and what I also saw. No reply needed as the thread's long enough, this is more just to clarify. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 11:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly oppose unblock This timesink needs to end. HT has shown a complete unwillingness to accept any responsibility for his actions, and they are wiki-lawyering more than any editor I can really recall in some time. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unblock. I had forgotten about the now-deleted edits. This entire process is the definition of "timesink", and I agree with comments made by a few others (including RickinBaltimore and Swarm, just above). If someone wants to get unblocked, and if the block and the events leading up to the block (and here we should take the long view, going back to January at least and stopping for a while in May) are clear (or clear to most admins/editors, anyway), then such a discussion waged in this way is proof of unproductivity. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unblock The current indefinite block started at 7 August 2017. Hidden Tempo and supporters appear to be basing their opposition to the block on a claim of a lack of justification, but that rather misses the point of Wikipedia which is that many eyes are available to investigate this kind of issue. Many admins would have reviewed the appeals at User talk:Hidden Tempo in the last six weeks and none have chosen to unblock. If Wikipedia is run by lizards who block righteous editors, HT will have to find another website. Diffs have been provided, but the timesink factor is sufficient reason to oppose an unblock. Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• (Following copied from User talk:Hidden Tempo ―Mandruss ☎ 04:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC))[reply]
  Comment - I think everybody's about had enough of this thread and said their piece. Bishonen suggested that this thread remain open through last weekend, and it has stayed open much longer than that now. This is going around in circles and just as I predicted[41], the thread has now degenerated into aspersions[42], personal attacks[43], and false accusations/half-truths[44][45][46]. Let's simplify what's been learned so far from this Rorschach test of an unblock appeal, and I think I've summarized most major points of view and facts:

So the facts have been established, and important milestones and key points of debate are within the collapsed section. I, and it seems the vast majority of participants, are more than ready to have this report closed. I made my case, and many others have made their case as well. Please let's not spend any more of our time arguing the same points again and again. If an uninvolved administrator could close this, I think we would all be very grateful. While there is a good amount of "unblock without restrictions" !votes, it seems the !vote tally is not in my favor. Nonetheless, this has run its course. Thanks to !Boing for taking action and moving this appeal along, and thank you to all the editors who saw what I saw and voted accordingly. Hidden Tempo (talk) 04:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose unblock. There's clearly a pattern here that justifies an indef block/ban. Even when the earlier tban was evaded with a sock, we got this response (I got this diff from one of Hidden Tempo's posts above) which is just a tirade against others for their own disruptive behavior. I'm far removed from this, in terms of interaction with the editors, topic area and geographically, and what I've seen about the behavior here is very very concerning. In my opinion, it isn't why an indefinite block was imposed, but why it wasn't done earlier. When there's a pattern of behavior like this, you can't just say that "oh that was before the previous block", the block is there to improve the editing environment and it is serving that purpose. —SpacemanSpiff 13:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unblock. The block was fully justified. I am not convinced that Hidden Tempo accepts the basis for the block nor that they will not repeat the conduct that led to the block. Just Chilling (talk) 23:35, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional consideration

Close request

This has been going on for 8 days, and it's gotten to the point where there is 24 hours or more between !votes. There's a pretty clear consensus here not to unblock, and another overwhelming consensus to impose a topic ban on top of that. Even Hidden Tempo has indicated that they can see which way the wind is blowing with their last comment (which I might point out, was once again full of falsehoods and wikilawyering). I don't see how letting this sit another week is going to change that, considering that, as best I can see, every single one of the "only gotten involved as a result of this particular discussion" !votes have been to oppose the unblock. Even Darouets condition under which they said they would change their opposition to the topic ban to support has been fulfilled. (I can't say it's been fulfilled to Darout's satisfaction, but said review has certainly been done by now). I think it's time to close this and impose the topic ban. Pinging some admins who haven't !voted. @Ritchie333, Oshwah, NeilN, and Boing! said Zebedee:. @Bishonen: has only been involved in her capacity as an admin, as well (except for a single clarifying comment here). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:32, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I just made a related comment in the wrong place, which I have now removed! I opened this saying I will not judge the consensus, but I will reflect the consensus in my pending unblock review. Whoever evaluates the consensus, please be clear over whether there is a consensus to unblock, whether there is a consensus to impose a topic ban (and what that should be - is it Bishonen's original suggestion?), whether the two are conditionally related, and whether there is any consensus over when a new appeal (for any block or ban, whetever is decided) can be heard. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as the numbers go (I know consensus is not a tally of votes, but anyone who thinks that a tally of !votes isn't a part of a consensus has some 'splainin' to do), I count 25 !votes to decline the unblock, 9 !votes to unblock with TBAN, and 8 !votes to unblock without condition. I also counted 14 !votes to impose a TBAN regardless of outcome, and only 3 !votes opposing it. Now, the methodology I used was to tally each proposed solution independently regardless of editor, so for example, I've counted myself in both "decline unblock" and "unblock with TBAN" tallies, as well as Beyond My Ken and at least one other. All of the editors who gave multiple options gave "oppose unblock" and "unblock with TBAN". If I were to focus entirely upon the rationales given and the arguments made by those who offered two options, that would only reduce the number of !votes for unblocking with a TBAN, so I'm being generous to those opposed to this block in counting this way. The way I counted, 3 !votes can be removed from the "unblock with TBAN" category if you only want to count 1 option per editor. I've broken that down to the right.

As far as the arguments go, I've laid them out below:

Arguments for unblock w/o condition

1. HT hasn't engaged in any sanctionable behavior since the last sanction expired.
2. MastCell never presented any evidence of sanctionable behavior.
3. An indef block is too harsh/unwarranted.

Arguments for declining unblock request

1. HT has engaged in sanctionable behavior since the last sanction expired.
2. MastCell presented compelling evidence of sanctionable behavior since the block.
3. An indef block is appropriate given the amount of disruption this editor has caused.
4. HT has a history of engaging in sanctionable behavior.
5. HT has a history of dishonesty.
6. HT's has made successful unblock requests by promising not to engage in the same behavior again, yet has ended up sanctioned for the same behavior again.
7. The amount of disruption caused by HT and their supporters during this discussion is indicative of what we can expect the next time HT is sanctioned, should we unblock.

Note how each of the "unblock" arguments are directly contradicted by the first three "keep blocked" arguments. Each of those has an element of judgement to it, so I can't say they've been effectively countered. So it's up to each editor to decide which opposing assertion is true (or more true). Personally, I agree 100% with the three "keep blocked" assertions. In strict terms, the first "unblock" argument is completely false, HT and FT2 have both admitted that HT engaged in an edit war right before this block, even though both have made this argument. But I would still consider it a judgement call, because the argument that the edit warring was done over BLP concerns was made, and is not without weight (I don't really buy the CRYBLP counterargument, myself. I think HT legitimately thought this was a BLP issue, but it also seems apparent that an editor without a battleground mentality would not have felt the same way as HT.)

There's also another factor: How many admins have looked into this and declined to unblock? I count at least 3. Bishonen offered a compromise which was rejected, FT2 offered a counter-argument, but declined to unblock and you have also declined to unblock, instead asking the community what they thought. I know you wanted broader input, but that fact that you felt that you needed broader input indicates that this is not a simple matter of a bad block.

So that's my summary. I admit, I !voted (and HT has criticized me for doing so, as well as criticism me for defending my !vote and for calling for a close after HT, themselves had called for a close), and I'm not "unbiased" as it were. But I don't think that my opinion (or "bias" if you disagree with it) is invalid. Indeed, I first read about this block with the preconception that it was a bad block, based on FT2's summary on HT's talk page, and upon my interactions with Nfitz, the other editor involved in the dispute that resulted in the ANI thread that got HT blocked. (Those interactions took place in that ANI thread, and they left me with a very bad impression of HT's "opposition" in that discussion.) But it was MastCell's response at HT's talk page, in which they contradicted literally every assertion FT2 and HT's supporters made, made additional accusations against HT (namely, that they have a history of "weaseling" out of sanctions) and then provided evidence to support all of those claims (contrary to the abject bullshit that keeps getting repeated here) that changed my mind.

Anyways, that's what I've seen in this. I think it's very clear that the community doesn't want this unblock request to be granted. I think the arguments in support of this unblock request are weak at best, and dishonest at worst. So in my opinion, the consensus is clear on both fronts. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pants, I'm really surprised that you need this explained to you. It took me about 15 seconds to find flaws in your analysis, and I didn't bother to continue because the merits of that analysis are not the issue here. This community has just spent 8 or 9 days debating Hidden Tempo's block, and we are not going to spend another 8 or 9 days debating the consensus of that debate. A closer doesn't need help assessing consensus from anybody, certainly not from an editor who !voted and commented in the discussion and couldn't possibly claim to be neutral. I'm struggling to AGF and see this as nothing more than really bad judgment, and if I didn't think the close would go your way anyway I would be making a much bigger issue of it. Please don't do it again in the future. ―Mandruss ☎ 00:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't point out any flaws: You insinuated that you knew my underlying motivations for coming to the conclusions I did, I made fun of that insinuation because it's a little ridiculous to suggest that you know someone's private thoughts. You also suggested that the passage "dishonest at worst" was an aspersion, when it's clearly given as but one of a range of possibilities (though I will state clearly that I absolutely believe it applies to at least one editor here, and the evidence is right here in the fifth comment of this discussion). That's it. That's all you had. A subjective interpretation of what constitutes an accusation and a rather ridiculous insinuation that you are somehow in a position to contradict me as to what my own thought process was. That's not finding flaws, that's just complaining.

One thing we agree on, however, is that your comments weren't made for the purpose of mudslinging. I only moved that hat such that it would encompass your first comment because that was the only logical point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:48, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't point out any flaws because the merits of that analysis are not the issue here, as I said. Since you're clearly not interested in hearing what I'm clearly saying, I think I'm done here. ―Mandruss ☎ 02:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little strange to respond to an analysis with complaints, then later defend that response by saying you found flaws in the analysis, only to later turn around and claim that the merits of the analysis aren't the point of your comments. If the merits of the analysis weren't the point, then the only thing that makes sense is to presume your comments were a condemnation of me, personally. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:10, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Second the request for closure. If the closer finds consensus to leave the block in place, Hidden Tempo should still be able to make future unblock requests on their talk page (hopefully this time without attacking the blocking admin) as there certainly isn't consensus here for a community ban. Also, for reference, the terms of Bishonen's suggestion were an "indefinite topic ban from post-1932 American politics, with an appeal on WP:ANI or WP:AN allowed no sooner than a year from now" and that evasion of the topic ban via socks/IP would be grounds for an indefinite block. ~Awilley (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted closure

Well I tried to close this [70] but I have been reverted [71] by user User:MPants at work as "We need an admin to impose those conditions, a regular editor should not be deciding the exact sanctions to apply." What is the consensus on this? I feel I comply with the requirements set out in WP:NAC. Also Boing! said he would adjust the unblock request to reflect the community. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:02, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in my edit summary, I do not believe a non-admin has the right to impose such a sanction as you did in the close by indicating that HT was now subject to a community site ban. If the community disagrees, I will -of course- change my mind about this. But I do believe that the actual question here is a much larger one than this particular issue, and might need to be hashed out with a site-wide discussion, as it may involve a clarification of or change to policy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mrjulesd, in a thread that has been so immensely wikilawyered to death as this one, there is basically no chance that an NAC is going to not get thrown back in someone's face as a reason why the outcome was invalid. It may seem silly and pointless, but them's the breaks sometimes. GMG^talk 13:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the close was not appropriate - I voiced my reasoning at User talk:MjolnirPants#Why?, so I won't repeat it here. (But I do thank User:Mrjulesd for having the courage to try to cut the knot.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, twas a courageous close, and certainly well intentioned. And I'm not convinced entirely that my interpretation of policy is correct (that a regular user cannot close a thread with the imposition of a community site ban), but as I said, that would require a much large discussion. Until then, I would prefer to err on the side of caution. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn after comments from Boing!. Thanks for your comment GreenMeansGo. The only question now is "what admin would want to close this discussion who does not feel they are involved"? Maybe some day. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, statistically speaking, we have enough admins that at least one or two of them are bound to be rabid masochists. Although maybe we should make a user category for them, so next time they'll be easier to find. GMG^talk 14:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And here I was, about to take a look and potentially close the discussion, but heaven forbid I reveal my true nature as a rabid masochist... Primefac (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You know the difference between a sadist and masochist? A masochist says hurt me, the sadist says no. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We've got room for all types here at Wikipedia. It's just a matter of finding a place where you fit in... and where your "talents" are best used. GMG^talk 14:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That'd be a pretty lackadaisical sadist. I'd say "how exactly do you want me to hurt you?" then press for details until the massochist is all worked up and excited. Then I'd say "No". And smile. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard of a non-administrator implementing a topic ban and I seriously doubt it is permitted. Per WP:Banning policy, "Bans are a possible outcome of dispute resolution. They may be imposed by community consensus, by the Arbitration Committee, or by administrators (in certain topic areas)." In this case we would be looking at a community consensus ban, and the policy about a community consensus ban (WP:CBAN) clearly states "When determining consensus, the closing administrator will assess the strength and quality of the arguments made." Also, "If the discussion appears to have reached a consensus for a particular sanction, an uninvolved administrator notifies the subject accordingly and enacts any blocks called for. The discussion is then closed, and the sanction should be logged at the appropriate venue if necessary, usually Wikipedia:Editing restrictions or Wikipedia:Long-term abuse." --MelanieN (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Go for it, User:Primefac! --MelanieN (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Second close

The close summary - "TL;DR: No consensus to unblock. Clear consensus on the topic ban.
I think there's fairly clear consensus here against unblocking as a community action. I don't feel that MastCell has explained himself very well; trying to figure out what all this is about feels somewhat like diving down the rabbit hole and a clear explanation of what seems to have been a reasonable action might have saved some spilled bytes (hint for those who come after: this is what's it's about, which for an editor coming off an AP2 topic appears to justify some sanction). Of course explaining yourself repeatedly gets tiresome and I don't really blame him for wearying of it. Otherwise, there is certainly no consensus to unblock but I don't think that amounts to consensus to convert this to a community site ban; the subject has been raised, but not extensively discussed. Any admin is therefore free to unblock Hidden Tempo on their own discretion, should they find that it is warranted.
There is very clear consensus for an indefinite topic ban; one is therefore imposed. GoldenRing (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2017 (UTC)}}"[reply]

We need clear answers to the following two questions

• "Unblock, yes or no?"
• "Topic ban, yes or no?"

• @GoldenRing: thanks for taking the initiative to close this, but I have an issue to clarify. You stated: "...there's fairly clear consensus here against unblocking as a community action." I'd like to draw your attention to the "community bans and restrictions" section of the banning policy, wherein it states: "[e]ditors who are or remain indefinitely blocked after due consideration by the community are considered 'banned by the Wikipedia community'." I'm only bringing this up because you then stated: "Any admin is therefore free to unblock Hidden Tempo on their own discretion, should they find that it is warranted." This last statement of yours that I quoted appears incompatible with the banning policy, which seems to dictate that future appeals of the sanction should be presented to the community for review, and indeed we've had serious dramah in the recent past over administrators unilaterally deciding to unblock a user who was thought to have been community banned. Can I suggest you clarify your intent? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:29, 25 September 2017 (UTC) NOTE: I was typing this while Boing! said Zebedee was reverting the close. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 17:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• User:GoldenRing, I guess it's customary to start by thanking you, but "TL;DR" — Too Long; Didn't Read — really? If that was a joke, it didn't do much for me. Perhaps that's just the famous problem that text doesn't have a tone of voice. I know the discussion is long, but that's because a lot of people have invested time and engagement in it. Please don't close it if you in your turn don't have the time or the engagement to read it, all of it. I agree with Boing and Ivan about the problems with your close. Bishonen | talk 18:22, 25 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • @Bishonen: it was intended neither as a joke nor as you have read it; that sentence was the TL;DR Sunday of the remainder of my comments. GoldenRing (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Boing! said Zebedee's revert of the close. Yes, we do need clear answers to those two questions. We appear to have at least two other Admins planning on a joint close and we should leave it to them. I also agree with Ivanvector that a community refusal to unblock means that an editor is community banned and cannot be unblocked by an Admin acting on their own. And, boring as another agreement might be, I'm with Bishonen to the TL;DR issue. A decision as important as this warrants some time put into considering the close. Doug Weller talk 18:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• While I agree with the revert of the close for the reasons given above, to be fair, I'm pretty sure GR's "TL;DR" means "if you don't want to read my close, here's a shorter summary". TL;DR has kind of become an unfortunately confusing self-deprecating way of saying "in a nutshell". I wish people wouldn't do that, but it has become fairly widespread. think that's all that was meant here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I actually just typed up pretty much the same exact thing before I realized what you said. Just goes to show that I should read more than just the comments I was responding to before I edit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:16, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, you're probably right, @Floquenbeam: GoldenRing probably meant it in a self-deprecating way: 'sorry my close is so long'. In my defense, though, it was a bit confusing because the close wasn't long, it was quite short. It's a big, complicated thread. You usually, and appropriately, see long and elaborate closes of those, because many points need to be clearly addressed and analysed. This was a short close, and indeed missed addressing important stuff. But I'm sorry I misread you, GoldenRing. Bishonen | talk 19:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]

• @Bishonen: Floq has read my intent here correctly. To be clear, I've discussed this with B!SZ at my task page and am absolutely fine with his revert; if I'd spotted that there was a panel forming then I'd have stayed out of it, but I read this discussion through before that and then spent the intervening time reading history and pondering so didn't notice it. GoldenRing (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I read it the wrong way first and then realized what it meant. "TL;DR version: " followed by "Full version: " probably works better. Objective3000 (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No on the "And does the topic ban (for which consensus certainly exists) likely adequately address the disruption?" one - the job of a closer is not to evaluate whether a solution is adequate, but only to determine whether there is a consensus for it. Deciding the close based on one's own evaluation of what is sufficient is supervoting, and that is not allowed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see I was mistaken about the TL;DR bit. But I agree with Boing! about the fact that we (Admins) should only be determining whether a consensus exists, not if a solution will or will not work. But GoldenRing is both relatively new as an Admin and bold (in a good way) to take this on, and this is just part of the ever growing learning curve. Doug Weller talk 10:23, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Site ban?