Sunday
5
May
07:51 UTC


Please add comments to the bottom


UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. DHeyward (talk)

Arbcom arbitration enforcement

Doesn't look like your comments there are getting much traction. This is the worst committee this site has ever promoted, so the last thing I would expect from them is sanity.--MONGO 02:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's weird because they pretty much adopted my workshop verbatim except for the "no action is an action" which is silly because its not logged. My AE case had an admin bring up a 7 month edit as a 1RR vio. Imagine the chaos of an unlogged "no action." Any action will be wikilawyered as undoing a previous "no action." It just means more drama. I have no horse in the race. The real issue is "involved." Look at the last minor edit I made to signpost that was reverted. Then ask how 2 gamergate admins and gg spa are in an edit war at "My Little pony" article. Idiocy. Too many partisan crackpots. --DHeyward (talk) 04:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The current POV pushers are just as bad in misusing this website to promote their agenda as the 9/11 CT crowd was. If they adopted your suggestions then that would be a good thing. Not surprised the named sitting arb isn't being sanctioned, but they would then have to sanction the other two for "parity". Pays be to in a position of power...never mind that my efforts to stop people from linking to offsite harassment and to protect countless female editors on this site seems to have been forgotten, but it exceeds most of those out there screeching about inequality.--MONGO 05:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They are worse. They know WP and use twitter/reddit/youtube to draw in support. It's beyond badsites that just bash Wikipedia editors. ED is pretty much verbotten, but this new generation thinks twitter participation is somehow better. The bashing of David Auerbach in Signpost is appalling. All he's ever done is point out where his work was misquoted or misused. Contrast that with the agenda editors that are bashing him. Starting from the Daniel Brandt days, editors and admins that use Wikipedia to smear those that disagree with them should be banned and their accounts salted. They think gnome work makes up for their negative contributions and it's not even close. --DHeyward (talk)
Signpost is just a newsy venue for wannabe newscasters...I cannot see what it has to do with writing encyclopedia content. I'm fascinated that people fail to grasp why some of us prefer content editing experience for any potential admin.--MONGO 11:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

Hello, DHeyward. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement, a project dedicated to significantly improving articles with collaborative editing in a week's time.

Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Article nomination board. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 09:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

clarifying the query

posed as a pure hypothetical so no one will get upset -

"George Gnarph" was a principal in a publishing firm which sold an ebook which The Guardian and other papers said (more or less) "some might think it looks like a pyramid scheme, but this newspaper is very specifically not making any such comment at all".

A Wikipedia editor inserts the claim under a heading "alleged pyramid scheme".

IMHO, asserting in any way that a person is involved in a felony or alleged to be involved in a felony is, in itself, a contentious claim - and requires strong sources. Where no source makes the allegation, I regard it as a violation of WP:BLP.

Apparently some think "allegation" of criminal acts in Wikipedia's voice is not a contentious claim. Unfortunately, some of the faces I run across are ones who also argued in the past that saying that Jews "might" have a "dual loyalty" problem in (some unnamed country) is not a contentious claim either. If I err on any BLP, it is generally on the side of avoiding poorly sourced nugatory material. Collect (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read the complaint. The article and consensus is clear that the previous heading and wording were BLP violations. You removed it. The fact that it can be wordsmithed to be more accurate into a non-violation doesn't mean it can remain and doesn't obligate you to fix it. BLP policy says to remove it. The 1RR complaint was specious as any reference that it was a "pyramid scheme" is a BLP violation and consensus prevailed that it was. It would be ridiculous to sanction you for removing something that was determined to be a BLP violation just as it would be ridiculous to sanction an unrestricted editor for 3RR. That said, you better be right about the BLP violation because it appears there are those that think it would be perfectly fine to block you for correcting BLP violations. "George Gnarth" himself could have removed that and he wouldn't be sanctioned though a caution on COI would be warranted to make sure they were only BLP violations. No admin should be sanctioning edits that improve or protect the encyclopedia. ArbCom doesn't need to revise BLP policy. --DHeyward (talk) 21:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. There are a couple or three editors who track every single edit I make, and have done so for over five years now. The fact is that their claims of me being over-zealous on WP:BLP seems rather odd considering that they are occasionally the worst violators of that policy. Sigh. Collect (talk) 22:18, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meant in Good Faith

I honestly don't mean to tell you what to do, but given Liz's comment at the Enforcement Request of MarkBernstein, it might be for the best if you voluntarily withdrew your short submission. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liz has an axe to grind apparently. For the record, I didn't take a shot at anyone editing My Little Pony, only noting that a bunch of GG editors followed Masem to it making it a GamerGate edit war and topic (I noted that I didn't understand what it had to do with GG). She's stirring a pot for whatever reason. MB has ignored the IBan she linked to as well as multiple requests by me to enforce it. As I understand the latest explanation, we are only forbidden from starting enforcement action and commenting was okay. The IBAN was whittled and narrowed because there should have been action, otherwise a long time ago. I didn't bring this to AE so it's my understanding a comment is okay. I didn't find it necessary to attack anyone or provide my experience. --DHeyward (talk) 02:15, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Morehead

I trust you mean "Morehouse"?--Nowa (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doh. Yes. Thanks! --DHeyward (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

It occurs to me that your comments at WP:AE and on my talk page are in direct violation of your topic ban. This is exactly the kind of vexatious behavior that the topic ban was designed to prevent. Given that I should not be operating the block button or heavy machinery at the moment, I'll give you the evening to explain why this might not be and deal with this in the morning. Gamaliel (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone needs to chill about all this. @Gamaliel:, maybe just let this go.--MONGO 00:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I don't really need the hassle. Gamaliel (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or just email me? Bernstein canvasses for support off-wiki via Twitter etc and if this particular situation crosses over some on-wiki line then I'm quite happy to deal with it by other means. It is no secret that I have been compiling an ArbCom case. - Sitush (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For Gamaliel to enforce this topic ban against DHeyward after twice declining to enforce it against MarkBernstein would be nothing short of absurd. Which means, given my experience with Gamaliel and MarkBernstein, we can probably expect it to happen any moment now. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't recall what alleged instances you are referring to, I have declined to enforce lots of possible sanctions against lots of people. There is a long list of instances where DHeyward has escaped sanctions, for example. But there aren't internet boards full of people coming to Wikipedia to complain that he hasn't been blocked yet. Gamaliel (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a 3-way IBAN. Considering it was brought up on the AE request by Liz a while ago, it would be stale to act on it now since it closed. Second, you are the admin that imposed it. Appealing to uninvolved admins and especially the imposing admin is one of my only recourse to provide information. Leaving that information on your talk page, rather than AE is in the exact nature and spirit of what you said the Interaction Ban included. If you don't want to place it on the AE page, that's your discretion. As Starke Hathaway noted, I asked you to drop IBAN or enforce it numerous times and each time you whittled it away in its scope to where I only understand it to prevent me from bringing new actions. Had you not closed it so quickly, my recourse is to ask you to put on the AE request which would have been the same thing as what I did. I would find it rather odd to complain about your talk page when it wasn't on article space or noticeboard space which is where you complained about it being disruptive, but your talk page where it is permitted. When implementing it, you seemed to think invoking the Interaction Ban so that Orlando Thargor and I could not bring AE action against MB, it would end MB's appearances at the noticeboards. That did not happen. It would be rather punitive to somehow enforce this as an IBAN violation when the only reason is another close of another MB appearance at another admin board. --DHeyward (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The intent of the topic ban was to get all three of you to stop complaining about one another. And yet, here you are complaining about him. I've looked at the log and the sanction has not been officially modified in any way, so it is still in force. I'm sure Sitush or MONGO would be glad to post any list of diffs you feel you need to post to AE. WP:DROPTHESTICK, now. Consider this an official reminder, which I am logging. Gamaliel (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no...MONGO definitely not interested in anything with the word arbitration in it...I can always go see my ex mother-in-law if I want some agony in my life.--MONGO 03:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Orlando and I never complained about or discussed each other. MB filed back-to-back AE requests because we commented on him at ARBCA (Against Thargoragainst DHeyward. Your solution was the IBAN believing that it would reduce the drama at AE. This all played out when he was topic-banned and that was all unwound when Dreadstar went supernova. After that I requested it be dropped or enforced. Multiple times regarding both comments on talk page, reverts and comments on admin noticeboards. Each time, you declined to remove the topic ban and explained the "intent" didn't include all those things. Asking anyone else to post my material would be canvassing. The only avenue is providing material to uninvolved admins as it is explicitly stated as allowed. I emailed the material to all commenting admins prior, except you, frankly due to perceived hostility to me. They didn't acknowledge receipt prior to your close, save for one that said they weren't able to review immediately. However, I will take your reminder to heart as I understand the concern you have articulated and what you believe I did wrong and I will take a few days to consider my options. I would hope you would also seriously consider the advice you gave Masem regarding the GGC article and consider it for your own AE enforcement participation where MB is concerned. It is good advice and you have been involved in GGC enforcement for over a year which I am sure is taking its toll. Enforcing admins have come and gone and perhaps a clean slate is not a bad idea. --DHeyward (talk) 04:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to become less involved. At AE, for the last several GG requests I've merely commented instead of imposing sanctions or taking actions, which is why that ridiculous drama fest that was the last request went on for five days instead of two. This makes it frustrating when people bring long complaints to my talk page demanding I take action while simultaneously complaining about my involvement. Gamaliel (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But you put your comments in the uninvolved administrators section. This puts doubt on whether your intentions to become less involved are sincere. If you must make comments on AE, I would do what Liz did. Also, hatting the discussion counts as taking an action to me. 97.125.135.34 (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is denying that was an action. Were I attempting to be more active, it is an action I would have taken days earlier. Gamaliel (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you were attempting to be less active, then you would have waited until either another admin closed it; Or until most of the arguments made in AE were addressed. Yes, it is a dramafest, but it isn't senseless, mindless banter. 97.125.135.34 (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there were some sensible arguments buried in the drama somewhere. Next time we need to do a better job of policing the statements so they can't be manipulated by outside interests for the lulz. Gamaliel (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More