User:Andyvphil/sandbox

Admin Gamaliel - misuse of tools, failure of accountability
Initiated by  Andyvphil (talk) at 06:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Involved parties

 * , filing party


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request


 * Diff user 1
 * Diff user 2
 * Diff user 3


 * Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried


 * Link 1
 * Link 2

Clerk notes

 * This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Admin Gamaliel - misuse of tools, failure of accountability: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0>
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)



Admin Gamaliel was involved in a content dispute with user Andyvphil at [Neil deGrasse Tyson]

In response to this personal attack (and others mentioned) Andyvphil posted a response  which Gamaliel (1st sbuse, INVOLVED) revdel'd,  "Nope, you don't get to use this space as a forum to expound on your bullshit theories denigrating the subject of the article." The deleted text is quoted, off-Wiki, here:.

Andyvphil then went to Gamaliel's talk page and informed him that he would be objecting to the revdel and requested access to the deleted words. Gamaliel declined to do so on the grounds that Andyvphil had repeatedly made "racist" assertions, and "insist[ed] on making blanket racist assertions" and claimed, "You have repeatedly suggested that a prominent and successful academic of color was a failure as an academic and only succeeded as a result of affirmative action", and "...you assert that someone only succeeded because... or in part because of a racist assumption unsupported by evidence".[] No such assertions had been made. Andyvpphil asked Gamaliel to solicit a second opinion, request ignored. Gamaliel repeatedly refused to provide any diffs and his explanations, based on false descriptions of both deleted and undeleted text, cannot be considered "full" ones, contrary to his duty as an administrator. Pressed, Gamaliel threatened Andyvphil with "blocking and/or profanity in multiple languages" if he did not stop his inquiries. He "archived" the conversation, deleted a further reminder to him of his "duty as an administrator to [respond] promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about [his] administrative actions" and, after Andyvphil again reminded him "that 'go away' is an out-of-policy response to a civil inquiry as to [his] administrative actions" and that if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies the admin ought to take the question to a noticeboard or get a 2nd opinion, deleted that and blocked Andyvphil(2nd abuse) for, initially, 24 hours. Some time after that he unblocked Andyvphil with the comment, "Harass away!", but blanked and protected (3rd abuse) his talk page.

transcluded complete exchange:.

Andyvphil used ANI/I for "dispute resolution". (Gamaliel didn't show up despite editing elsewhere but his apology, at his talk page for not using proper process to get the results he claimed he was entitled to anyway, was deemed sufficient by the closing Arb, Beeblebrox; Andyvphil got a BLP block, for persistently asking questions indicating bad thoughts, imho).

Wikipedia:Administrators WP:Administrators
This page in a nutshell: Administrators are... expected to observe a high standard of conduct, to use the tools fairly, and never to use them to gain advantage in a dispute. ...

Administrator conduct
...consistently or egregiously poor judgment may result in the removal of administrator status. ...if an administrator finds that he or she cannot adhere to site policies... while addressing a given issue, then the administrator should bring the issue to a noticeboard or refer it to another administrator to address...

Accountability
WP:ADMINACCT Administrators are accountable for their actions involving administrator tools... Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.

Administrators who seriously, or repeatedly, act in a problematic manner... may be sanctioned or have their access removed. In the past, this has happened or been suggested for: ... ...
 * Breach of basic policies (attacks, biting/civility, edit warring,...)
 * Failure to communicate[6] – this can be either to users (e.g., lack of suitable... explanations of actions), or to concerns of the community (especially when explanations or other serious comments are sought).
 * Repeated or consistent poor judgment

Communication
 7) ... all editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues. This is especially true for administrators in regard to administrative actions. Such expected communication includes: ... using accurate and descriptive edit and administrative action summaries; and responding promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about their administrative actions.

diffs
Gamaliel hiding response: Gamaliel performing 2nd revert:

19:20, 17 October 2014: I didn't "insinuate" anything. I said with perfect clarity that it's virtually certain that Tyson got special consideration on account of his race, and I inquired whether the new crop of editors becoming familiar with the sources had seen anything on this. Anyone offended by such a request needs to reexamine his prejudices. Andyvphil (talk)

circa 13 June 2008: Tendentious editing by User:Andyvphil (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Barack_Obama_pages#Tendentious_editing_by_User:Andyvphil)

def
Wash out - to fail and be removed from something, such as pilot school.