Hidden Tempo

Post new topic   Reply to topic

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Hidden Tempo

Post by Soham321 on Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:28 pm

I must say I am very impressed by Hidden Tempo's demeanor and never-say-die attitude even though some of the most powerful mandarins of the wiki world (Bishonen, Floquenbeam, Drmies et al) are now aligned against him. The very fact that Bishonen felt obliged to offer HT the choice of a 12 month topic ban in return for cancelling his indef (which Hidden Tempo rather grandly rejected despite vigorous prompting by Drmies and others) made me appreciate HT more.

The WP mandarins first attempted to indef HT in the WP:AN discussion. When they realized they would fail in this attempt, they are now coalescing around the idea of handing out a 12 month topic ban to HT. Here are the links to the relevant discussions:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Unblock_request_at_User_talk:Hidden_Tempo  

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hidden_Tempo

----
With respect to the first link, I am in complete agreement with these two posters in the AN discussion:

Unblock without conditions. This is very simple: MastCell did not provide diffs to back up their characterization of Hidden Tempo. Indefinite bans cannot be handed out without evidence. The argument that Hidden Tempo is a time-drain on the community is especially troubling. Banning an editor without evidence, and then accusing them of wasting time when they defend themselves is just Kafkaesque. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

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)


----

Soham321

Posts : 42
Join date : 2017-02-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Hidden Tempo

Post by Soham321 on Mon Sep 18, 2017 3:54 pm

Hidden Tempo, I'm sorry you misread my comments. I wasn't commenting on content as much as explaining why your article edits and talk page contributions were clear enough indications of blockable behavior. In my opinion, of course. BLP exemptions, by the way, need to be reasonable, so it's not like the mere claim of a BLP violation suffices. Moreover, there are two living people involved, and the contention is that one of those edits of yours was a BLP violation of the other person, so to speak. I hope that clears it up.
Sorry, failed to look at the "feeble" thing. RexxS is a pretty straight shooter, and this edit summary indeed was not your best moment--one can argue, I suppose, that you've had it in for Marek since then or even before, but that's neither here nor there for now. I'm not quite sure why you want to point me to a discussion where you were blocked for a BLP violation, and unblocked on the condition that you grasp the BLP, when that's precisely what we're discussing. User:Boing! said Zebedee, of course, is the one who got this whole discussion going for you in the first place, so again, why would you want to rag on them right now? I'm asking because I just don't understand the tactics here--if I were you I'd be making friends, not pointing at old things that don't make you look good, while criticizing those who have been good to you. Now, if this is only about paraphrase, I've been teaching paraphrase for 20+ years, and I think that was a pretty good one. Take care, Drmies (talk) 23:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I didn't see the above comment about my block as anything more than just a statement of fact. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:44, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


----
My comment: Drmies is now resorting to disingenuous spin. Even Boing! is disassociating himself from Drmies's assessment that HT was trying "to rag on  them (Boing) now."

In his comment, Drmies gives a link to this post of HT: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hidden_Tempo&diff=752666243&oldid=752608697

Now, admittedly, the edit summary left by HT was unduly harsh. But no more harsh than the  treatment Drmies's friend Sitush doles out to newbie editors she is in disagreement with (with the blessings of friendly Admins like Bishonen).

Drmies calls RexxS "a pretty straight shooter", and I will not disagree with  this assessment. But I will let the reader judge whether it was Rex or HT who was harsher to the other in this interaction the two had:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RexxS/Archive_33#Please_strike_unsubstantiated_claim

Soham321

Posts : 42
Join date : 2017-02-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Hidden Tempo

Post by Soham321 on Mon Sep 18, 2017 5:09 pm

Comment 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
I feel at present the evidence I could see doesn't support the block. But there may be much more I didn't see. We need to know these things from the blocking admin or others who know the situation:

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)
Has any formal or focused discussion taken place anywhere about the user's conduct any time since 17 March 2017, apart from this thread?
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 TF2 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 TF2, 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)


https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=801294632&oldid=801293857

Soham321

Posts : 42
Join date : 2017-02-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Hidden Tempo

Post by Soham321 on Wed Sep 20, 2017 10:20 am

the fight continues; HT is continuing to fight valiantly and heroically. I don't think he can escape the one year topic ban; but the question now is whether he can escape an indeff despite many mandarins of WP aligned against him. Its going to be interesting.

---

@{{u|RickinBaltimore}} - Yesterday I stated {{tq|"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."}}[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hidden_Tempo&diff=801071206&oldid=801046526] In MastCell's block, at the very end, you will see this: "'''...repeated instances despite prior blocks and topic ban.'''" I have asked MastCell for diffs of these "repeated instances" dozens of times over the past month (or even just ONE diff), and several other editors and an admin ({{u|FT2}}) have requested them as well. MastCell STILL has not provided them. How could I possibly take responsibility for something if I don't even know what I'm taking responsibility for?<br>Not trying to soapbox with this analogy, but this is what they do in DPRK and used to do in the USSR. You go into a room, are forced to sign your confession for crimes (with the promise of leniency), but you aren't allowed to read the confession. This can't be how Jimbo envisioned as how he wants this process to work. Can it? I've said it numerous times. Show me the diffs of the "repeated instances" since my topic ban expired, and I WILL be the first to take responsibility for them, apologize for them, and explain to the community why I will not repeat these edits. But I can't do that until I SEE these edits. Is this edit really an unfair request? Is asking for these diffs really nothing more than merely more bludgeoning and wikilawyering? Please tell me so I can help resolve this. I respect and understand that you feel that I should never be unblocked, but I still feel that my concerns are being completely ignored and my appeal is being dismissed again and again as nothing more than a "time sink/"suck"/waste of the community's time.  [[User:Hidden Tempo|Hidden Tempo]] ([[User talk:Hidden Tempo#top|talk]]) 20:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hidden_Tempo&diff=801462732&oldid=801462559

Soham321

Posts : 42
Join date : 2017-02-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Hidden Tempo

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You can reply to topics in this forum