User talk:Zad68

Archives

Older 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Jan - Mar 2012 Apr - Jun 2012 Jul - Sep 2012 Oct - Dec 2013 Jan        2013 Feb        2013 Mar 2013 Apr       2013 May        2013 Jun 2013 Jul         2013 Aug        2013 Sep 2013 Oct        2013 Nov        2013 Dec 2014 Jan       2014 Feb       2014 Mar 2014 Apr      2014 May       2014 Jun 2014 Jul        2014 Aug       2014 Sep 2014 Oct       2014 Nov       2014 Dec 2015 Jan       2015 Feb       2015 Mar 2015 Apr      2015 May       2015 Jun 2015 Jul        2015 Aug       2015 Sep 2015 Oct       2015 Nov       2015 Dec

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• @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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ([1]), 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)[reply]

Color gets a ban but Mark gets a warning. Sure. 107.77.83.117 (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This admin needs to zip up, his bias is showing. 68.81.149.131 (talk) 03:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, that proposal is reasonable. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ColorOfSuffering, very good, I will respond on your User Talk. Zad68 03:42, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious to get your opinion as to whether or not this edit is considered trolling: [2]. It certainly looks inflammatory to me. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[3]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [4] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to work on this. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Liz: They should see this MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-gamergate message. Also, thanks Zach! — Strongjam (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you for your attention, cheers! Darwinian Ape ^talk 20:27, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There is always WP:BREAK. 174.30.95.89 (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Liz Not ridiculous considering this[5]. 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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

You rang? 28 fucking minutes (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I tried to explain above, it was 28 minutes on top of several weeks. Zad68 23:25, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The judicious AE appeals venue is thataway. Stop berating him on his talk page, though. --DHeyward (talk) 06:50, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note - I am stepping away for a bit, so may not reply in a timely fashion. Zad68 03:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 "Error in Template:Reply to: Input contains forbidden characters. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

The editor you said originally added "mass shooting" with your diff[6] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

And if you read our current article in detail[7]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)[reply]