User talk:Zad68/Archive 2015 Jun

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Gamergate restrictions

Hi, Zad68. I've stated this elsewhere, I will repeat it here: I'm not disputing the existence of the ban at Talk:Gamergate, only the way some people are interpreting its extent. In particular I'm deeply concerned about other editors removing content from the talk page without leaving any trace by deleting posts made by complying editors, which clearly was not part of the restrictions as discussed.

My concerns of accountability, and those made by several editors regarding how the restrictions breach several core principles, should make us reassess the details of how people are trying to enforce it, now that we have several weeks of data about its impact. Diego (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, apologies, and welcome to intacto-vision

Hi Zad,

I hope you're keeping well. I'd just like to apologise for not following up on my (almost certainly flawed) bibliometric evaluation of the circumcision article about a year and half ago and I hope that it didn't cause too much of an issue for you. I just had to drop Wikipedia then as it was interfering with real life. The article still seems to be following WP:MEDMOS. Was there an RFC? Just to reassure you, I don't intend revisiting the article, but can I assume the same issues prevail on the article talk page (I'm afraid to look!)? Best, FiachraByrne (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Fiachra, delighted to see you around again! No, no problem at all, and actually I haven't been editing in that area for a while, there's lots going on elsewhere. I've been doing admin things, and electronic cigarettes are an area of interest now, as is Acupuncture, and I actually had meant to look in at Alt Med, where coincidentally I see you've been active. There have also been interesting discussions and proposals at WT:MEDRS, have you seen those? Hope things are well with you... Zad68 15:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Zad, and we'd be delighted to have you at alt med where there's now a pretty decent group of editors with mixed perspectives and no absolute extremists (it won't last, obviously). The article does need a bit of rethink in terms of structure and content. Re WT:MEDRS, I assume you mean the quackwatch discussion? My inclination is to argue that, where biomed content strictly applies, you need to stick religiously to WP:MEDRS and not make exceptions. Anything else serves to weaken the guideline, which is the best line of defence, and will look like double-standards. And I say that as someone who thinks that, understandably, WP:MEDRS can be applied uncritically and inappropriately to content on occasions where biomedical claims, strictly understood, have not been made (i.e. I have a narrow view of when WP:MEDRS should apply). Obviously, there will remain a significant problem of POV pushing in areas of alt med; but that's endemic here anyway. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Kindly help with a civility edit

DHeyward this request regards an editor with whom you have an interaction ban. As the edit wasn't signed and it was moved, it's plausible you didn't know who wrote it. Closing here; I will take it up. Zad68 17:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I trimmed some inflammatory language in meta HAT note. I have no idea who made the original edit but Hatting has been contentious before and incivil notes only inflame the issue. I don't know why PtF would edit war over it considering there is an article 1RR restriction but I can see edit wars and inflammatory language being things to avoid on all gamergate pages. Here's my edit [1]. PtF has reverted me twice in order to retain the bitey and inflammatory language which adds nothing. No one argues for death and rape threats, nor should we be characterizing edits made by new editors as not useful. You've been policing it pretty well so I'd rather not continue an edit war to maintain civility if you can do it without antagonizing the relatively new editors. Also, I think it's pretty clear which version is preferable that asking for AE or 3RR will just start more unneeded drama. I can do that but it's rather pointless as I don't think anyone would argue that article needs more reverts and more inflammatory language. --DHeyward (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Your DR/N comments

[2] I'm quite disappointed that you chimed in after I voluntarily withdrew. You said some pretty incriminating things and I ask that you please provide the diffs demonstrating my behavior as you described, otherwise you too are casting aspersions. I can't recall ever showing ill-will toward Jytdog when quite the opposite has been true and I know full well you are as aware of it as I am. Please show me the diffs and if there is something I said that needs my apology, or if I haven't already apologized for speaking out of school, I will oblige. If not then I expect the apologies to come my way. Thank you. --Atsme📞📧 20:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Atsme what were the events leading up to this? I said "contentious interaction." Even if you don't feel that you meant ill will in your actions, that's certainly not how it came across, so it appears you're not seeing how others perceive you, to that point where (again, AGFing here) you stepped in to volunteer at a DRN case of someone who told you explicitly that they'd prefer not to interact with you. That's the judgment issue I was referring to. Zad68 21:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Zad, I asked you to provide diffs that support the claims of ill-will on my behalf. What you showed me is another groundless allegation by an editor who is casting aspersions and now neither of you have provided one diff showing I said or did anything to warrant such claims. The onus is on you - please show me the diffs that support the allegations you are supporting with regards to my behavior, not more unwarranted aspersions cast against me by another editor who also failed to provide diffs. You might also want to review the ARBCOM case regarding casting aspersions when there are no supporting diffs. --Atsme📞📧 22:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't need to provide diffs supporting something I didn't say. This is the last comment I'm going to make here, probably, but at some point this is going to catch up with you. Zad68 22:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
You made the following statement: "...given your recent very contentious interaction with Jytdog in many venues". Contentious interaction? Many venues? Zad, those are your words and they imply that I'm the one who has been contentious, and I don't know where the heck you came up with many venues but it is absolutely not true. DR/N June 5, 2015 I believe you know full well it isn't true and you are the one it will come back to haunt. I have consistently AGF and maintained politeness and civility despite the allegations and aspersions launched against me. I am growing weary of it, Zad, and I certainly didn't expect an admin to make it worse. I had already voluntarily withdrawn from further discussion in that DR/N matter but you kept on casting aspersions against me after the fact. The onus of proof is on you - provide the actual diffs that support what your allegations against me or strike them. I don't want to see anymore diffs showing more unwarranted aspersions cast by others who also didn't provide any supporting diffs to back them up. I don't want such allegations to go unanswered only to be used against me in the future. I want them resolved now. As I said, if I did something wrong and owe someone an apology, then I want to see what I said - and not from another editor's POV. I want to see my words, not theirs. --Atsme📞📧 23:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC) (moved diff into body of my post where it belongs 01:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC))
  • atsme look at the comments you made on A1's talk page shortly before i left that comment for you. you just piled into a discussion that had nothing to do with you, with insults. That was the last straw for me - where it became clear that you had no good will for me. before that you had piled into disputes i had, that had nothing to do with you, with negative comments, like clockwork. walk through your own diffs. I have.
I wrote you that note and have honored it, staying away from you, and I expect you to stay away from me. you have burned the bridge to the ground. way, way past apology. please stay away from me. if you keep at it, i will pursue an iban. i have had it. Jytdog (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Zad, I am ignoring the rude interruption and will not allow it to derail our discussion. I asked you to provide evidence to support your allegations against me in your statement as follows: "...given your recent very contentious interaction with Jytdog in many venues". [DR/N June 5, 2015 Contentious interaction? Many venues? Provide the diffs because you discredited me at a noticeboard where I volunteer to help resolve disputes. You were wrong to make such unwarranted, unsupported allegations against me especially after I had already withdrawn from the case. As a non-admin, TransporterMan's response was far more responsible in his attempt to diffuse the disruption. I suggest that you either strike your comment at DR/N or provide the diffs to support it. --Atsme📞📧 01:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Drop the stick or I'll be filing for an I-ban tomorrow. I would rather spare the drama and your humiliation, but if you keep pushing this, that is what I will do. Your behavior toward me has been unacceptable, and it is clear to anyone who has watched it. Last chance. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Since you are addressing me directly, I will respond. You are free to call this situation what you will, but if you are referring to my insistence on Zad providing diffs for his aspersions against me, I have no ill-will toward him or you as I've stated before. I already know such diffs don't exist and the ones that do are not flattering to either of you. My conscience is clear. I withdrew my participation at DR/N while you and Zad continued casting aspersions against me for the sole purpose of tarnishing my reputation. Regardless, I am not a vengeful person. Bygones. My only interest is in maintaining my integrity which I can/will defend with diffs against any and all false allegations. I'll accept your olive branch even though it has a little poop on the end of it - it would have been much nicer had there been ripe olives instead. I'm not nor have I ever been a vengeful person and definitely prefer peaceful coexistence over drama. You don't want the drama anymore than I do so if I may suggest that you try a little harder to be nice and AGF. I imagine Zad doesn't want the drama, either. I've always considered him to be a good admin with good intentions but possibly too busy and/or too trusting to verify that he's not walking into quicksand prior to supporting a position. It's much better for admins to be neutral and try to resolve disputes, not intensify them. Our discussions are noted and logged and I truly do hope they will rest peacefully in the archives forever. My purpose on WP is and always has been to improve and contribute to the project in GF. We are all getting paid the same amount - ZERO - so the only thing at stake here is our integrity and how we treat each other. I have expressed my views on noticeboards and I have remained neutral across the board which is the result of neutrality training over the course of a 30+ year career, and also as an official judge (retired) of a particular international sporting event not to mention journalistic integrity. --Atsme📞📧 18:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Please stay away from me. I am doing the same. I have told you what I will do, if you don't take that request seriously. You have enough not-nice, even nasty, behavior toward me, demonstrated in diffs, that an iban will not be hard to obtain. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
Really? Then please show me just one diff that supports your claim. I don't want you to have to dig deep into your archives, so just one diff will suffice. Just one. --Atsme📞📧 19:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
I told you above where to look - your comments to/about me at A1's page the day I left you that note. Straw that broke the camel's back. Done here, and going back to not interacting with you. Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this the diff?

Having seen the claims made about Atsme at DRN, I became curious about the elusive diffs referenced above. This is probably not what you all are referring to, but it's all I could find with only hints about A1'a talk page to guide me. Is this it? petrarchan47คุก 20:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Indefinite

Hi Zad,

Could you indefinitely block me. Thanks. :) FiachraByrne (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's alright, I can use the wikibreak enforcer script apparently. Thanks again though. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 June 2015

Heads Up

This rather stale discussion at Gamergate Talk bears watching, in my opinion. Editors seem to be engaged in a great deal of loose discussion alleging that living persons may have filed false police reports, misled police or the FBI, or misrepresented crimes they reported. To the extent that the discussion effectually publicizes Wikipedia editors’ belief that the named subject committed a crime, these discussions could be construed as a libel. Since the overwhelming consensus of the sources is that threats were made and crimes committed (and since neither the Boston Globe nor the Washington Post nor the New Yorker would conceivably have reported the existence of threats without being satisfied that the threats were real). such speculation cannot lead to a change in the encyclopedia.

If not tended or hatted, the discussion (which already runs to eleven days and 3700 words) may run indefinitely with little profit to the project.MarkBernstein (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Mark I'm aware of the discussion. I read through the whole thing and took actions I thought appropriate. I do have a day job and ration out my Wiki-time, especially when on business travel. If I don't appear responsive enough you can always try WP:AE. Zad68 05:18, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
no problem at all. I feared this one might be overlooked, thanks. MarkBernstein (talk) 07:12, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
And now I believe there's a (fairly urgent) need for a rev-del at Brianna_Wu. Sigh. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to intrude by I keep seeing this and it's killing me: what does 'hatting' mean? Handpolk (talk) 04:54, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Also after reading through that discussion, I would think StrongJam should be cautioned about his tone. Another editor is trying to improve the article and he dismisses him in condescending fashion repeatedly, as if he is the final decision maker, rather than one editor giving his opinion. That is not helpful to improving the encyclopedia. Handpolk (talk) 05:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
@Handpolk: This is an example of a discussion that has been hatted. The entire discussion can be hatted (removed from obvious view) or just portions of one can be hatted if it is judged to be off-topic. Liz Read! Talk! 10:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Anybody can do that, or only administrators? For what reasons can that be done and reverted? Handpolk (talk) 13:52, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

ggc question

As this has turned into a straight article content discussion (and I'm glad it has!), please continue it at the article Talk page. Thanks... Zad68 12:41, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Anybody can take a guess. I'm new to this topic and I don't know the answer at all. Roughly what % of people topic banned/blocked etc from the gamergate articles are on the gg side and which % are on the anti-gg side? Removing people who are instantly blocked/banned for vandalism and such. But those who actually attempt to contribute but are prevented from doing so. Thanks. Handpolk (talk) 16:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

@Handpolk: The list of sanctions actions taken are available on WP:DSLOG. - Strongjam (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know which side those people were on, though. I have no idea who any of them are. Handpolk (talk) 16:55, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
You'd have to look at their contribution history. Normally when an action is logged things aren't categorized by what "side" someone was one. Just what the action was and a link to a diff. — Strongjam (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
@Handpolk: To answer your question more directly: excluding sanctions resulting from the arbitration case, every entry you see in the log above resulting in either a permanent ban or topic-ban (vandalism aside) affects what the sanctioning administrator would consider a "pro gamergate" editor. 198.8.80.73 (talk) 17:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, that's the perception of some outside of Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 23:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz, Looking through the relevant sections of WP:DSLOG, I think we need to be honest with ourselves & accept that the IP's statement seems fairly true. If it were not, it would be easy to identify a "non-pro" editor sanctioned with either an indef block or indef topic ban; I am unable to do so, but invite other editors to make their own judgements. NB: This is not a suggestion that any of the sanctions were unwarranted, or of any bias on the part of the admins imposing them. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 00:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
So, you can look at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#GamerGate and not see there are editors with a variety of viewpoints on this topic who have been sanctioned? Oh, and by the way, Handpolk just called me an SJW shill on his new reddit for "both sides" which is humorous because I have made only 1 or 2 edits to the article. But so much for coming from a "neutral point of view". Liz Read! Talk! 00:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Assuming good faith, I must exclude the possibility that you were being deliberately disingenuous by noting you've only made two edits on the article, and instead consider that you may have just demonstrated a shocking lack of understanding of the power of your non article edits on shaping the article. Being an omnipresent pillar of consensus on every talk page, user page and noticeboard can have just as big of an impact as regularly editing it. I hope that was helpful to you and you can now retract the misleading statement you just made. Like I said, I'm assuming good faith and not accusing you of deliberately trying to mislead people. Handpolk (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Liz, Many thanks for the response. I looked through WP:ARBGG, and all of WP:DSLOG#GamerGate & WP:DSLOG#GamerGate_2 and WP:DSLOG#Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons & WP:DSLOG#Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons_2, which also contain sanctions explicitly listed as related to in this space.
While I do note that there are indeed a number of editors with a variety of viewpoints who have been sanctioned, the IP's statement explicitly filtered for "permanent" (indef) sanctions, and excluded those placed by the Arbitration (ARBGG) case itself.
On review, I find one "non-pro" editor who was indefinitely topic banned; this was rescinded just over 2 months later, and I had excluded it from the analysis on that basis. I apologise to you, and to that editor, for this oversight.
Notwithstanding this sole exception, the point raised by the IP editor still seems to be largely supported by the information provided in the DS logs. NB: This is not a suggestion that any of the sanctions were unwarranted, or of any bias on the part of the admins imposing them.- Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:28, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
That is alarming. If they had been able to avoid those sanctions, consensus would look quite a bit different, along with the article itself. It would seem there should be some kind of proxy consideration for all of them when reaching consensus. 'We know what the people who aren't with us would say, so let's keep that in mind,' instead of just pretending they never existed and letting those left standing have their way. Handpolk (talk) 09:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
There aren't "sides" in this. That's the biggest fallacy out there. --Jorm (talk) 17:03, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Can you elaborate? Are you saying that according to Wikipedia policy that is not how we are supposed to conduct ourselves? Or are you saying in reality 100% of editors are acting unbiased and in good faith 100% of the time? Handpolk (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
@Handpolk: I'd take 198.8's interpretation with a grain of salt. Maybe a bucket. In particular, four of the Five Horsemen of Wikipedia were banned in the Arbcom case. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, 'every' seems unlikely. What is your guess as to the answer? Handpolk (talk) 18:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi MarkBernstein, In reviewing the DS logs to provide an analysis of the IP editor's statement above, I also reviewed the Arbitration case (WP:ARBGG). Looking through the "Remedies" there, of the 5 editors referred to as "The Five Horsemen of Wikipedia", I found only three that were sanctioned with a ban of any kind (all three were topic banned; one was also site banned). The remaining two were "admonished", but were not sanctioned with bans of any kind. Would it be possible for you to amend your statement above to reflect this? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Jorm is correct; there are no sides -- beyond, that is, the side of people who are here to build an encyclopedia, and the side of people who are here for other reasons. Why do you ask? MarkBernstein (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Among those who are here for other reasons, there are two distinct groups who share a common viewpoint. That is what I was referring to by "sides" -- in the future when I say "sides" that is also what I will mean FYI. Handpolk (talk) 20:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, if they share a common viewpoint, I don't see how there are sides. Liz Read! Talk! 23:33, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Each side has a common viewpoint. Two sides, two viewpoints. I find it extremely hard to believe you didn't understand what I meant but I'll assume good faith and presume you demonstrated poor reading comprehension (note that this is different from saying that you have poor reading comprehension, which may be considered a personal attack. That was merely an observation about what you just did). Handpolk (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Hate to go all pedantic on you, but @Liz: is correct: the antecedent for "common viewpoint" is "two sides", and "common" suggests a view held in common among the sides. A writer wishing to emphasize that each side had a distinct viewpoint could have chosen "several/ly" or "corresponding" or "respective" or several other constructions, MarkBernstein (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Apropos of nothing, one firmly and passionately in one of those groups would be well aware of the existence of the other and should have no problem understanding what I meant. Hence why one may find it extremely difficult to believe a claim of not understanding. Just to be abundantly clear, in no way am I accusing Liz of lying, acting in bad faith or being a biased editor who isn't here to improve the encyclopedia. Handpolk (talk) 02:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I believe the discussion has established 3 camps: one camp of Pro-Wikipedia and 2 camps of anti wikipedia. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
While this definitely isn't as simple as two "sides," i'm going to make the simplification and try and answer your question. The reason for the perceived discrepancy in sanctions is more to do with the sheer volume of vaguely pro-GG editors that arrived around October. Inexperienced or SPA users are more likely to feel the wrath of the banhammer, and the majority of those editors were pro-GG leaning. See User:ReynTime for an example of an anti-GG SPA who arrived and got banned for stirring trouble. If you look at sanctions against experienced editors of all leanings, sanctions against them have been more lenient or revoked. Excluding the topic bans handed out by arbcom and short one month topic bans, every experienced editor who has received a topic ban has had it revoked at least once. Other experienced editors get short term blocks instead of topic bans.Bosstopher (talk) 10:26, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Why are people assuming that those 'pro-gg' editors who have been sactioned are actually pro-gg? Isn't it possible that they could be third party trolls? PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 10:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Is that what they think in your private subreddit which you described as for 'SJW's and anti-GG types' to coordinate editing this article and involves tests to keep out 'gators' trying to 'infiltrate' you? Handpolk (talk) 10:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Dude... Bosstopher (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

@Handpolk: I believe the truly neutral question to ask is "How many of the GGC banned/blocked editors were disruptive trolls and how many were good contributors who were baited into acting inappropriately?" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:04, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware either of those had occurred/were a problem. Nevertheless, that isn't what I was interested in. You yourself have said everybody has their own bias or agenda (or something close to that, sorry for paraphrasing you). So I was asking if that could be quantified. And it has been. Handpolk (talk) 12:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, people are banned for being disruptive to the project or being baited to be disruptive. they are not banned merely because they are "pro" or "anti" something (even people "anti-wikipedia" get to fully edit and participate as long as they are not disruptive.) You should maybe look into that more deeply from your truly neutral point of view. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Of course, nobody suggested they were banned for their views. There are way to many checks and balances on Wikipedia for that to be allowed to happen. Clearly they violated rules. Handpolk (talk) 13:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
If my first experience with the talk page + admin who hatted my discussion is any guide, I would now guess many of them were sanctioned just like I am attempting to be sanctioned. They voiced disagreement with consensus. Were told that if they continued voicing disagreement they would be sanctioned. They voiced disagreement again and were sanctioned. So, that is not directly being sanctioned for their views. But it's pretty close. This article and it's talk page is essentially bigoted. In that it is intolerant of views different from it's own. I've never seen any article anywhere threaten to sanction all expressed dissenting views before. Incredible. Handpolk (talk) 02:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Neutral_point_of_view Given the sources are unanimous in their consensus, "dissenting" against the sources is in fact an issue. continual "dissenting" against the sources is disruptive. continual disruption leads to consequences. It is rare to see the continual generation of accounts pushing "dissension" against the consensus of the sources and so your view of the page's uniqueness is not surprising.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
If we ignore we are talking about GGC, I agree with you. 100%. For example on Obama being born in Kenya or something like that. Here, I don't think it is as clear cut as people are making it sound. Some people make broad and vague claims about the RS's and others agree. That consensus then declares their view an undeniable fact when that isn't the case. It's still subject to interpretation and should be subject to analysis and debate. Handpolk (talk) 03:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the sources are pretty damn clear cut. Where exactly are there any reliable sources that go into any depth about anything other than the misogyny and rape threats? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:49, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
As one example, I just attempted to edit the article to be true to the source, instead of phrasing things in a way that the source does not support. And was reverted by two editors who prefer the incorrect version. People are gleaning what they want to from the sources. They don't actually even say many of the things that are being claimed in the article. Handpolk (talk) 10:55, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
As discussed on the talk page, essentially every source describes it as our article does - the issue is far more likely that in some of the reverts, edit wars and troll attacks the sourcing that specifically validates the phrasing was inappropriately or inadvertently removed rather than people pushing POV that is not abundantly present in the available sources. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:33, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

Hi! You banned me for "trolling." Let's talk!

Hello Zad68! It's a pleasure to make your acquaintance, though I wish it had been under happier circumstances. You seem to have topic-banned me for several edits I made to the Gamergate controversy talk page. As you can imagine, I do not agree with this decision, but I believe I do understand why you made your decision. I would humbly ask you to assume good faith and undo this ban. It might help to take a stroll through my contribution history for evidence of any past abusive behavior that would lead you to believe that I could reasonably be suspected of malicious trolling. Satire ≠ trolling, and while I was using humor to highlight what I perceived to be the flawed logic behind several recent administrative actions (your recent talk page protection in particular) and stalled content discussions, in no way were these edits intended to provoke, disrupt, or harass other editors or Wikipedia. In order to satisfy your claim of trolling, you should be able prove that my intent was nefarious and that my goal was disruption, and I do not think you have made a strong enough case (or any case, really) for that. Finally, while we do not have a lengthy personal history, the fact that I had been previously quite vocally critical of your recent administrative actions ([3]), which was a topic of the edits you cited in your sanction, makes you more involved than I'm comfortable with for an administrator issuing discretionary sanctions. While you may be considered fully within your right to enact this sanction, I believe that raising this issue at WP:AE would be a more appropriate course of action, rather than unilaterally issuing a topic ban. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 07:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Color gets a ban but Mark gets a warning. Sure. 107.77.83.117 (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
This admin needs to zip up, his bias is showing. 68.81.149.131 (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
ColorOfSuffering I believe my action is in line with WP:INVOLVED; you may pursue that question at an appropriate administrative noticeboard if you wish.

I acknowledge your direct appeal to me regarding your topic ban. I will agree to lift the topic ban if, when communicating about the topic of Gamergate, broadly construed, you commit to adhering to the guidelines at WP:TPG, and in particular that you will commit to using plain, straightforward communication about the article content and sourcing. Failing to do this will likely result in a sanction. Do you agree to this? Zad68 14:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that proposal is reasonable. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
ColorOfSuffering, very good, I will respond on your User Talk. Zad68 03:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm curious to get your opinion as to whether or not this edit is considered trolling: [4]. It certainly looks inflammatory to me. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

ColorOfSuffering trying to catch up now. I see this edit is small piece of a very big discussion now at WP:AE. I have a lot of thoughts but I can't guarantee you I'll be able to cover everything. Zad68 00:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
No problem at all, certainly real-life issues are far more important than anything happening on this website. I just wanted to make sure that there is a sincere attempt to curtail the trolling and personal attacks for all sides of this issue, especially considering I had no history of blocks or bans when action was taken against me, while the user in question has been the subject of numerous administrative actions. Thanks for taking a look, and I hope all is well with you. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 00:25, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
I have concerns on all "sides" of this. There is no empirical formula to determine whether something is trolling or rhetorical style or precisely how disruptive an editor's behavior is, and there is no deterministic lookup table to come up with an appropriate response. One thing I'm sure about is that it's not possible to make everybody happy. If I have time I do intend to comment at WP:AE but really not here. Zad68 00:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

Gamergate

Hi. I don't know if my comment is allowed on the meta page, so I'm copying it here. You implied that my complaint wasn't actionable, I have addressed that below.

FWIW It wasn't so much the 'rape' etc language that is non-neutral, it's how each side is presented. There is a very strong and passionate case made for one side, stated as fact -- while the other side is not presented like that. Qualifiers are used, it's said things are 'claimed' -- and indeed a great deal of effort is put into completely debunking the other side. This gives the strong impression one side is right and the other side is wrong. That is not neutral.

Somebody said this is 'non-actionable'. It's very actionable. You simply remove the criticisms of the second position, state things as certain and generally make a stronger case for it -- or you use the same qualifiers and tentative language for the first position as is used for the second, and likewise include a strong case for why the first position is wrong. That would make the lede neutral. Handpolk (talk) 07:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I just found this. I'm sure the other side disagrees with them and I'm not saying they are right (I don't know who is right, this is all new to me). But there is 136 comments of people speaking in unison that their side is not being presented accurately. While the other side loves the article. I honestly do not know how a reasonable person could learn this, and come to the conclusion that the article is neutral. Handpolk (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Zad68. Handpolk has been repeatedly violating the 500 edit 30 day restriction after being notified of it- specifically at the meta page for the Gamergate controversy talk page. It would be greatly appreciated if you could handle this- in the future, should I contact you for such requests or would AN/I or AE be most appropriate? PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 11:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
As I have told you repeatedly, there is no restriction for meta or sub pages. It says very clearly 'this talk page and this article'. Your interpretation that this applies to meta and sub pages is incorrect. You, however, have violated the 24 hour 1 revert rule, and as such should be blocked. Handpolk (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@Handpolk: the appropriate place to report those who have violated the 1RR restriction is (I believe) the edit warring section of the administrators noticeboard, but I could be wrong and it could be requests for arbitration enforcement. Either way, best of luck! PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 11:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Peter the Meta subpage was set up without any clear instruction that the same 500/30 restriction apply. So there's no action to be taken regarding Handpolk's edits. However Handpolk has just been using the Meta page for article commentary, so I will fix the instructions at Meta and make it clear the same restrictions apply. Zad68 11:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 11:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a note, not sure if you saw or whether I was clear. The 500/30 rule now has the effect of requiring new and dormant accounts to acquire 500 edits outside of GamerGate. I think this is fine and will reduce SPA and socks. Also, it doesn't make sense to grandfather older pre-GG accounts as they are have also shown up as disruptive. I think it would also help to level these requirements across all editors so that conditions for editing GamerGate are the same. Namely, the requirement of 500 non-GamerGate edits and 30 days of editing be applied to every editor in that space. The goal is curbing disruptive SPAs from randomly editing and the even requirement for 500 non-GG edits remove SPA accounts whether they are established or not, just as I believe you intended with the time and edit rule. --DHeyward (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Zad68, FYI. I've asked some questions around the new "Meta" Talk page on Gamaliel's Talk page, which you might be able to assist with as well. One thing that I forgot to add, but is probably better here, is if we could update the WP:AC/DS/Log entry for the "30/500" restriction to say "Talk pages" (plural). I would make the edit myself, but I'm not sure if that's overstepping the mark. Thanks in advance. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 09:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

  • @Zad68: Hi. When considering edit warring, edits which are made consecutively in close time proximity are considered to be a single edit when calculating whether the 3RR "bright line" has been breached. I'd like to suggest that the same standard be utilized in regard to the Gamergate 500 edit requirement, so that edits such as these by Handpolk on List of Tamil films of 1973 would be considered to be a single edit, rather than as 170 edits removing 4 bytes each over the course of approximately one hour, which is a little under 3 edits per minute. Clearly such gaming of the 500 edit requirement shouldn't be rewarded, and the 3RR precedent provides a good solution. BMK (talk) 22:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Hey BMK, I understand why you're suggesting this refinement. Practically, though, it would make it more work to enforce because you'd have to really carefully review every new editor's history, and then there'd be possible arguments about whether a given series of edits was really "one" edit, etc. The current "500 edits" requirement is easy to check, independently verifiable, and doesn't require judgment calls. Also, there's a bit of a WP:ROPE factor that makes it really obvious when someone is just racking up trivial edits to increase the edit count, vs. really gaining experience in other areas, and so reveal the editor's intentions. Zad68 22:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Zad68, Just a heads up to let you know that I added a notice to the top of the "Main" GGC Talk page similar to the one added to the "Meta"; based on no objections at the meta page for over 1 week. Please feel free to amend as required. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 07:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

To any interested stalkers...

If you've noticed I haven't been active over the past few days, I've had to take care of a few higher priority things on the home and work fronts. Thanks to those who emailed asking after my whereabouts. I hope to return shortly... Thanks! Zad68 13:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Zad68, I hope that these are happy things, and I wish you every success with them. I'd also like to note that I saw some changes to a "filter" which seem to be around a technical implementation of the 500/30 GGC restriction; if so, I would like to extend my personal thanks for your efforts on this. One of the concerns that I had with the restriction is that it seemed (to me) to enshrine incivility in allowing editors to remove or refactor Talk page comments. A technical implementation which prevents comments from appearing is (to my thinking) very much preferred. Look forward to your return. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 03:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes Ryk72 now that the 500/30 restriction has been tested, several times, and support was found for it, I wrote an edit filter to detect when an account not meeting the 500/30 requirement was attempting to edit the article, I left it for testing for a short period, it appeared to do what was needed, and it is now set to disallow edits by ineligible accounts. Zad68 00:35, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to work on this. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, Zach. Does the filter post a message stating this on the editor's talk page? Because they might think there is a problem with the site and not notice the restriction. When we were manually removing edits, we would post a note explaining what was going on on their talk page. Is this possible? Liz Read! Talk! 21:00, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@Liz: They should see this MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-gamergate message. Also, thanks Zach! — Strongjam (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@Strongjam:, awesome! Is that what an editor sees after their edit is rejected because they don't meet the editing restrictions? Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
@Liz:, yes, the editor should see that when they trigger Special:AbuseFilter/698, which is flagged to prevent the action from happening. — Strongjam (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for filling in Strongjam, on the first attempt for an ineligible editor to save an edit to the page they will be re-presented with the unsaved edit page (like an edit conflict) and the MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-gamergate message appears at the top. If they hit Save again they will get another message with the "No entry" icon (on this page, fourth one down, with a message that saving the edit was disallowed. Zad68 02:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Permission to comment at AE

MarkBernstein has once again violated his IBAN (as he did at ANI and the GG talk page. This time with a snide reference to me in his reply (even they I did not comment there).[5]. Yes, I work with a company name Genesys and my spell checker corrects it to that spelling. That reference is gratuitous and the claim that I am a "Gamergate fan" is insulting and gratuitous given that I am not part of the complaint nor made any comments (and am not a Gamergate fan). MarkBernstein and I are supposed to have permission from an uninvolved admin before we discuss each other or comment at noticeboards and I am asking for that now. His personal snipes are getting old and his ignoring the IBAN is getting bolder. May I comment there? --DHeyward (talk) 20:20, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward I thought you couldn't start an AE or other administrative action without an admin's support. Is the restriction that you can't comment on an already-open one? Can you link to the notification of the sanction? I'm sorry there's a lot of sanctions in this area. Zad68 02:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
DHeyward I see it in the WP:DSLOG now, per your restriction you can't "comment on". Would you mind sitting this one out, we already have way more heat than light there. Zad68 04:18, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
That's fine. It's stale. MB hasn't abided by it so I'd like it lifted. Orlando appealed but I haven't. There was no evidence provided at the time of IBAN, just more of MB heat with multiple violations (it lead to Dreadstars topic ban among other things). You can review the IBAN proceedings if you like and Orlando's appeal. --DHeyward (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
DHeyward would it actually IMPROVE things (or at least get rid of a bit of pointlessness) if it were dropped, 3 ways? Zad68 04:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Orlando doesn't comment anymore and MB doesn't abide by it and is not sanctioned so the only effect it has is preventing me from discussing changes he proposes, modifying edits he's made or asking for and commenting on enforcements. To the extent he's been unfairly piling on Masem with little impedance speaks loudly. I am certainly still targeted by his comments despite the IBAN [6] the the Gamergate fan who kept misspelling “genesis” as “genesys”, too, but the standard of English in the area will likely deteriorate further. is a reference to me in the middle of his diatribe against Masem and is quite offensive to be called a gamergate fan, nor is my dealings with a company named Genesys that is part of my spellchecker relevant to understanding the discussion. Without the ability to respond or bring AE action (even for violating the IBAN) leaves me with little recourse. His history of commenting on editors makes him toxic to the subject area and he's been blocked and TBANned for it. If Dreadstar hadn't been pissed at Mitchell for blocking him, MB would still be TBANned (it was Dreadstar's wikicide move). If the IBAN isn't being enforced or honored. what good is it doing the project to let him continue to run roughshod over other editors? Orlando and I were guilty of one thing: commenting at AE that illustrated the unhealthy actions by MB. Is it helpful that he continues with impunity with personal attacks against me, Masem and Stark after so many warnings, blocks and bans? Even today, he tried to lay blame on WP editors (apparently those that oppose his views) for the Charleston shootings. Do you think the IBAN, previous blocks, warnings, bans, etc have worked? The IBAN obviously hasn't changed his behavior and isn't working so, yes, at this point the IBAN is pointless. --DHeyward (talk) 05:34, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Apology re Handpolk

Hi there, @Zad68:

Sorry - did not realise Handpolk could not comment. Apologies to him for that. He need not reply. He was only pinged as it was his AE. Vordrak (talk) 15:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

500/30

If Carrite takes up Jimbo's suggestion, do you you think 500/30 should apply there as well? No issue with Carrite tackling a tough job, and a completely revamped version might need some fresh eyes, but I'd rather not see new editors and socks gravitating there, rehashing old issues. --NeilN talk to me 22:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi NeilN, I had a similar line of thought just now, and was about to pose a slightly different question on Jimbo's page. I think we can all agree that there is little value in having the same editors rehash the same discussions again - and that the draft should be free of POV pushers of all persuasions.
But I'm not sure how we achieve that; I don't think 500/30 goes far enough - there are editors who qualify who are clearly (admittedly) here to push an agenda.
Perhaps if Tim takes up the challenge, it might be worthwhile them selecting editors to contribute, at least for the initial draft, rather than leaving it open - I realise that this somewhat flies in the face of "anyone can edit"; but we could allow editors back in later. Thoughts? - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree that we would not want a draft article being sock-puppeted or vandalised. Having said that surely if an article is a draft in someone's user space it is up to them to decide who participates? Vordrak (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Not if it goes against community consensus. Community guidelines still have to be followed. For example, you can't invite a topic-banned editor to edit a page in your user space on that topic. --NeilN talk to me 14:39, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

On your closer of TRPOD's AE filing by myself

Please note that based on comments before you closed that I'm expecting that some will want to review my edits relative to TRPOD's per BOOMERANG under BLP issues, which I would be willing to continue discussion , if necessary, to making sure if or if not wasn't an issue. --MASEM (t) 19:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@Masem: Meh, I don't, and anyone who does can open a new AE. You know where I stand on the BLP issues, but I don't think it's was so bad it needed to be boomeranged. — Strongjam (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
My thoughts are in the closing notes at the AE and in the note I left on TRPoD's User Talk page. Zad68 19:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit Clash

@Zad68: Hey there. Just to note I started to write a statement in Mark Bernstein's AE request about j0eg0d just before you hatted it, so we clashed. I was not trying to edit a hatted section. I rolled it back, which also clashed! Sorted now. Vordrak (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

On the closing of the last AE request on gamergate

Hello, Zad. I don't think you would remember, but I have written to you on your talk page once before as an IP, about a similar case.(for TRPOD's AE request) There was a procedural decision you made that was, what I thought, problematic back then.(declining the case made by an IP on the procedural grounds) In fact that incident was the reason why I started to use my account which I created long ago but never felt the need to use it. I am very sad to see that a relatively trivial thing like gamergate affecting my beloved, and in both sense of the word free, encyclopedia in a very bad way. Your decision on imposing the 500/30 sanction, is extreme but currently necessary, for it prevents new users getting banned just because they see a topic of their interest misrepresented in Wikipedia. But It would not have been necessary if the current editors could change their Biting attitudes towards those new editors, and not treat them as Trolls by default. I have seen editors just suspected of sockpuppetery getting blocked due to their competence. And many more hasty indef blocks, some of them very justified and some of them would not have happened in any other part of Wikipedia. One thing was common, they were all somewhat supportive of gamergate.

But there is a group of editors on this topic, which makes anyone with a shred of objectivity, look like a supporter of gamergate. These editors believe, and forgive if I'm exaggerating, the gamergate is worst than ISIS. They say there is only the harassment/misogyny/death threats aspect of gamergate, because only those aspects are covered in reliable sources, which is not entirely true. I admit there is very little coverage of the other side of the issue, but I feel it's not because other side's claims are completely without merit, but because there is a journalistic laziness on the part of mainstream media to fully investigate the issue, and lets be honest, "harassment in gaming!" reads(and sells) much better than collusion and cover ups in gaming journalism, which nobody but nerds care. These editors oppose even the tiniest of changes to allay the NPOV issues in the article. They are not even subtle about their intentions as seen in M. Bernstein's comment on the AE page. They see this topic as a battle to be won, and this is not good for Wikipedia. In my opinion, they are the main disruptive force in this project, not the occasional trolls and newbies who don't know the wiki rules.

I apologize for a rather long digression, but I felt it was necessary to explain where I am coming from. Back to the issue at hand: When you closed the latest AE request against M.Bernstein, you noted "And now we got some guy who says he's a journalist and he's threatening to write stuff if we don't hand out sanctions in a manner of his liking. Even if I wanted to here I won't sanction now because I don't even want to provide the appearance of appeasement." Forgive me for saying so, but I believe this decision was wrong. Doing this, defeated the purpose and you let this person affect your decision even if it was not his intention. It would have been much better to decide whether M.Bernstein needed sanctions or not by looking at the case itself and the behavior of said editor. Not sanctioning a disruptive editor just because someone out there doesn't like him is not in the best interest of Wikipedia, and nor would you be appeasing him had you sanctioned the accused editor, and though I agree some may have seen this as such, It wouldn't have mattered because what matters is the Wikipedia. You avoided the appearance of appeasement at the expense of the project. I am not a gamergate supporter, but I do know the issue is not black and white or good versus evil as the guardians of the article makes it to be. But this issue is becoming less and less about gamergate and more about Wikipedia rules being changed to suit the people with clear agenda and not here to build a neutral encyclopedia. And while one side of this are effectively blocked, the other side reins freely. I am sorry for my long comment, I hope you have time to read it, best wishes. Darwinian Ape talk 06:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Darwinian Ape I have read your comments and will reflect on them but I have no response for you here at this time. Zad68 20:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your attention, cheers! Darwinian Ape talk 20:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

Banner/topic ban

Hi Zad, I notice the banner at the top of TheRedPenOfDoom's talk page references the topic banned subject. I'd advise him to remove it but it would be best coming from you. 166.173.250.50 (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for letting other people worry about it. Zad68 01:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

IBan Regarding Mark Bernstein

Hi there. Please could you provide some diffs giving examples of the alleged behaviour? Vordrak (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Really? Perhaps you could look through your own contribution history and see how many times you've brought up the subject. Zad68 23:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I just have. In fairness, I have mentioned him a lot although less so over the past two days. It does seem somewhat harsh however, to put in place a ban without prior warning. Sanctions on Wikipedia are not punitive, they are preventative.
Therefore if you will agree to lift the ban, I will refrain from commenting on him except on in discussions raised by myself or others at COINS or ANI and in relation to any article we should co-edit (which has never happened).
As a technical point, you cannot make a unilateral AE decision in relation to the COINS matters because they do not relate to the GamerGate case and therefore do not fall under the discretionary sanctions rules. I have never edited any GamerGate article or talk page and do not appear to fall under AE. I have mentioned the topic only in passing. However that is secondary to my offer to amend my behaviour.
You can always ban / block me if I do recidivism. Vordrak (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
@Zad68: sorry forgot to tag you. Also checking my history the behavior complained of lasted 7 days. It would also be out of scope preventing me from contributing to ANI or COINS discussions brought by other people as a witness. (E.g. if someone else brought an ANI case I do not see why I could not be a witness. Vordrak (talk) 23:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
@Zad68: For the avoidance of doubt, I appeal against the ban on the basis that it is -
(1) disproportionate given the staggering number of people who talk about Mark and the fact that the behaviour complained of took place over a couple of days
(2) and I have offered to amend the behaviour complained of
and
(3) appears to be out of process, insofar as it relates to non-GamerGate matters
(4) out of process as you have not cited any recent diffs, even when asked Vordrak (talk) 02:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Vordrak you do not need to {{u}}-ping an editor when writing on their own User Talk, they are notified by the appearance of the User Talk message itself.

Regarding the sanction, first I believe it is correctly within the WP:ARBGG jurisdiction. You linked to your "Sinister" video, what, a dozen times on Wikipedia? By my evaluation you spend a majority of it talking about Mark in relation to Gamergate, discuss Gamergate editing on Wikipedia, discuss the Gamergate editing subreddit you started, and you interacted with Jimbo on his User Talk explicitly referencing the modifications made to the instructions on the subreddit to potential Wikipedia Gamergate editors. In addition to that, here you jump in to a Gamergate-related AE thread about someone else and post a 6,000+ character block of text about Mark and allegations of COI. Thankfully the AE thread was closed by the time you submitted your comment, so it was removed on a technicality, but it's still yet another place where you've jumped into a Gamergate-related discussion. So, because just about all your energy has been focused on influencing the content of Wikipedia's Gamergate article, I consider you officially WP:INVOLVED. As such, at this time I decline the sanction appeal; your other avenues for appeal are provided here: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications.

Vordrak you're a well-spoken individual and a fine writer. In your video you talk quite a bit about ethics, openness and and transparency. You also have legal training; surely you value the principles that one accused of wrongdoing deserves a chance to have their side heard in an appropriate venue, have the case driven to a conclusion, and then to have the matter put behind them. By bringing up your concerns in an off-site video where the accused can't defend themselves, and in just about every on-Wikipedia venue except for one where the matter could actually be put to rest, you're not adhering to that principle. If you have a concern, you need to take it to the appropriate venue, each party will present their side, and then the matter can be closed. You may not hound other editors without providing them that opportunity--that is the point of the sanction. Zad68 02:32, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Zad68: Hey there. Off-wiki content is not amenable to administrative action. If it is, I would respectfully point out that the other side just posted a blog attacking you personally. On-wiki content is amenable to sanction, but I have offered to restrict the venues of my on-wiki content in line with your request. That is not an admission incidentally, hounding is denied. Turning to the AE comment, that would have been entirely permissible for the purposes of WP:BOOMERANG. With that in mind I would like to offer you the opportunity to reconsider. I note that at this time, I have been entirely courteous, whereas despite the fact you just iBanned me the other lot are happily attacking you online. Without, of course, even the courtesy of an opportunity to respond or the media inquiry I gave to the people in my video. Vordrak (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Vordrak you made the off-Wiki content part of this discussion by linking to it, repeatedly. You can't make videos explicitly focusing on a named Wikipedia editor, provide several links to it, and then say it's inadmissible to talk about it when there are consequences from it. Again I am not saying you may not ever raise your concerns, I am requiring that you do it in appropriate venues. Zad68 03:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Note - I am stepping away for a bit, so may not reply in a timely fashion. Zad68 03:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

TRPoD

If I'm reading my timestamps correctly, this AE request was open for 26 minutes. That surprises me, since a number of recent AE cases -- both clearcut and groundless -- have lingered for days or weeks. I fancy that this is intended to Send A Message, but it presents some problems. For instance, people who might have useful comments to make might, in the future, feel pressed to express themselves quickly, lest the issue close while they're finding their diffs or polishing their prose. In an area where tempers run hot, this could have unfortunate effects.

One problem which has not, I think, been much noted in these discussions is that, since the ArbCom case, discourse on this page has collapsed entirely. I'm not sure how many uninvolved administrators follow the talk page with any care, and this may not be apparent on casual reading, but there is no longer any pretense of discussion. One consequence of this is that the same BLP violations are constantly raised, another is that the same policy (mis)interpretations are endlessly repeated, and no refutation from any source makes the slightest difference. It is, to say the least, daunting.

Finally, I would point out that, while TRPoD’s commentary has often been direct and sometimes ill-mannered, the pressures that can be brought to bear on those who participate here can be formidable, even if one's temper is not already in tatters. You're probably familiar with the outlines of my experience over the past few days -- the hundreds of Twitter posts, the public campaign of defamationvituperation, the hand-wringing over tiny edits I made many years ago and which have stood, since then, without controversy. You know this because I’m quite open about it. Others may be less open, but the pressures may be no less real.

I'm not calling for an action here; I'm restating what I said recently at AN/I. Wikipedia is exacting a cost from editors that I think we cannot, in conscience, ask them to pay, and even if they think themselves able to bear that burden, we should not ask them to. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It's ridiculous that this case was closed in less than an hour, without any input from other administrators. I'm not defending all of TRPoD's edits but this rush to topic ban doesn't look good at all. The complaint might have come to the same result but it should have run for at least 24 hours so other administrators and editors could weigh in.
Why the rush, Zad68? If you are tiring of this protracted Gamergate controversy dispute, maybe it's better to let another admin step in. I'm sure there are at least one or two who haven't thrown up their hands in the air in dismay quite yet. Liz Read! Talk! 20:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I think if a pro-gamergate editor had made vulgar personal attacks indescriminately against everyone opposed to gamergate on the level of TRPoD's comments, nobody would have raised this consideration. In fact, I don't think in pretty much any other topic area would this kind of action from an admin would have been controversial. 108.52.24.214 (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTCOMPULSORY. If editing Wikipedia is exacting too burdensome of a cost, then I would ask if it is, in fact, worth the effort. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
There is always WP:BREAK. 174.30.95.89 (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

MarkBernstein, Liz, AE is set up so that issues can be handled in Wikipedia's most problem-ridden areas with a minimum expenditure of community resources. And, as is true with Gamergate in general, AE gets involvement from those most expert at using up those limited resources. So at AE, there is no minimum amount of time that a request has to be open before it can be handled, and no community consensus is required either. A consensus among admins isn't even required, it takes just one admin to act. Having a case 'linger for days or weeks' is not how it's supposed to work, cases are supposed to be handled expeditiously. Having (perhaps unwisely) stepped into this topic area a few weeks ago, I felt like I had enough context about what's been going on to make a decision. Also keep in mind that there can be considerable negative consequences to keeping a clear-cut case open longer than necessary. Zad68 20:47, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Liz Not ridiculous considering this[7]. TRPoD was the only finding of fact that did not result in at least a topic ban but did result in a warning. That the behavior continued at all, and has been tolerated for so long, is the issue not the the length of time of the latest complaint. Also considering the Arbitration Committee asked for more enforcement of basic civility, I find it somewhat ironic that a clerk-in-training would be criticizing actions that the committee has expressly asked to be done. --DHeyward (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Well, I don't agree with you but I appreciate you taking a moment to explain your position, Zad68. I've just never seen a case at AE closed so rapidly, even in the midst of a genuine crisis or panic. I think this is a notable departure from a typical resolution of cases at AE. Liz Read! Talk! 20:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
You know, DHeyward, at this point, your little jibes and insults just roll off my back like water off a duck. I pay them no mind at all. It's become predictable behavior. Liz Read! Talk! 20:57, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
See, it's this kind of thing that's annoying. You're here defending an editor who has made comments that are the epitome of "little jibes and insults." All of you in that area need some bleach. Arkon (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, even ol' Joegod was given more even-handed consideration for much starker vitriol. You should reconsider and perhaps allow some admin consensus to form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.22.174 (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm generally not a fan of hasty closures, but I think this result has to be regarded not as a stand-alone incident but as a followup to the complaint against TRPoD that led to Zad68 instituting the 30/500 restriction. The hypothesis was that WP:BITING was necessitated by egregious behavior of the newcomers. This hypothesis was put to the test; the newcomers were removed, and the biting did not stop. Rhoark (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Rhoark, Zad68 has been scrupulously impartial. He has been quite happy to criticise both sides, for example he even removed an earlier contribution I made in this thread. Vordrak (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

28 fucking minutes. Protonk (talk) 23:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

You rang? 28 fucking minutes (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
As I tried to explain above, it was 28 minutes on top of several weeks. Zad68 23:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
28 minutes and I are only friends. It's not how you think it is. I slipped and he tripped over on top of me. Several weeks (talk) 02:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
So the judicious way to avoid a complaint sprawling into weeks was to cut it off inside half an hour? It certainly prevented you from hearing much of any commentary that might have changed your mind, I'll give you that. Protonk (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
The judicious AE appeals venue is thataway. Stop berating him on his talk page, though. --DHeyward (talk) 06:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Clarification of "broadly construed" scope of topic ban

If I responded to the ping from Anarchyte by creating a section on my talk page called "In response to your question about modifying talk page comments" which consisted of "{{ping|Anarchyte]]}} There is nothing in WP:TPG that suggests you need to replace such a link" - would that be considered to fall under the "Gamergate, broadly construed" scope of the topic ban, given that the talk page in question is Talk:Gamergate controversy and the section on User:Anarchyte's page also directly names Gamergate? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom, it'd be fine to close out that conversation with a general comment like the one you provided, thanks for asking. Zad68 13:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Both your diffs have "mass shooting".

The editor you said originally added "mass shooting" with your diff[8] didn't add it. It's in both before and after. You can't even find the original edit and I certainly didn't undue it. It's contradicted by the Sarkeesian section in the WP article. I made an original edit because the lead was wrong and I had a source. It's still wrong, unsourced and in the lead. Stating that GamerGate is responsible for a mass shooting threat is the WP:OR violation. Arguably a BLP violation. Certainly an unsourced allegation. That's policy. Delete it. --DHeyward (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

PtF said that he didn't see it in the source which is why my revert highlighted the source in the revert comment (there are two Trib sources, he was referring to a different one). My edit matches the section that describes it. That's not a 1RR violation and PtF pretty much reverts every edit I make. It's not even tendentious as I brought it again to talk when reverted. I'm not sure what behavior you are looking for when unsourced and incorrect statements are made in articles other than edit them out and provide sources. --DHeyward (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Mass shooting was introduce to the lede with this edit. It stabilized for a while around this other edit. here's a source used in the GCC entry. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

And if you read our current article in detail[9]m 2nd paragraph Sarkeesian canceled a speaking appearance at Utah State University (USU) after the school received three anonymous threats, the second of which claimed affiliation with Gamergate.[48] The initial threat alluded to the École Polytechnique massacre, a 1989 mass shooting motivated by antifeminism.. The first threat of a "mass shooting" was not gamergate. That section evolved even when the lead didn't. The body is correct, the lead is not. It's nonsense to say the first edit was a revert. 0RR sanctions would be an impossibility if that were the case. --DHeyward (talk) 05:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Zad68. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, Zad68. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Vordrak (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

500/30 Confusion

Hi Zad68, Just a heads up. The seems to be some confusion over the applicability of the "500/30" restriction at Talk:Anita Sarkeesian and User_talk:The most effectual Bob Cat. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Zad68, Just a quick note to say thanks for addressing this in both locations. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

500/30 Strikes again.

So the 500/30 policy has been brought up again.

Which brings up a few questions about the nature of the policy. What is the proper avenue for seeking clarification on this. TyTyMang (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Zad68/Archive_2015_Jun"