User talk:DHeyward/Archive 17

This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Please see here David A (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Even if you find the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee's statement dubious, it has been reported by a variety of news outlets. It would be appropriate to report and attribute the statement per

@Erik:The other news outlets such as Huff Post link to the bloggish reports to substantiate their claims. So not sure if its that news worthy. If someone is assaulted or attacked like the few incidents against Muslims or those some thought were Muslims after the 9/11 attacks then it's worth reporting. My impression is that what goes on in the blogosphere is pretty much not noteworthy. But this is a content discussion so best off on the article talk page.--MONGO 18:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I am seeing the statement reported by BBC News, The Guardian, Detroit Free Press, and Reuters. This viewpoint is prevalent in reliable sources. I really do not see a case to exclude the statement entirely. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

So if its in the news, it's worth reporting? Any actual instances of hate crimes though? I see none right?--MONGO 19:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the statement is worth reporting because per policy, it has been prevalent in reliable sources. If there is a response to the statement also prevalent in reliable sources, that can be included too. The sources I mentioned highlight the Committee saying there have been "violent threats" on social media, not any actual crimes taking place. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

No reliable source have said there have been "violent threats" on social media. Companies have press releases all the time. They are republished by reliable sources. That does not mean that reliable sources have repeated the claims in a press release. Go read a stock ticker symbol when they issue press releases. It's a self published source that is repeated, not a claim being made by reliable sources. --DHeyward (talk) 21:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not about whether or not the specific claims are true. It is about reliable sources reporting on the statement, thus rendering this viewpoint of concern prevalent, and thus appropriate to include per WP:DUE. If it was a press release that went unreported or minimally reported, then the press release's viewpoint does not warrant attention for coverage. Responses to the statement, also reported by reliable sources, are also appropriate. In the draft, for example, I mentioned that conservative news outlets criticized the concern and that Breitbart considered the claim a hoax. It is that kind of reporting that is appropriate per

WP:STRUCTURE. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me}

) 22:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee may be a notable organization. In terms of it's coverage in an article about a movie, is simply an UNDUE weight issue as ADC isn't any different than any other non-film critic. Put it in the ADC article if its notable. Without anything specifically attached to the movie, its not relevant. Note that every reliable source talks about ADC statements, not the film or anything attributed to the film - e.g. there are no threats that were documented separately being covered by reliable sources. We cannot in WP's voice or any RSs voice state that threats have increased. It's only a press release from a political organization. If we start including all press releases, we will have a gigantic article. These so-called threats, without any documentation, don't belong as a criticism. I'd also note that this organization cited the ground zero mosque as the pinnacle of threats. That group is not mentioned in that article nor are any threats mentioned in that article. Also the ground zero mosque isn't in the ADC article. If it's not notable in those cases, its extremely difficult to make the case that it's notable in an article about a movie. They have their views, they are just no notable enough to create controversy. The Charlie Hebdo attacks and ISIL beheadings created a lot more threats and this group is still not notable enough to cite their opinion, though I doubt they would issue a press release complaining about the increase in threats after the terrorist incidents (whence why they are not a reliable source for complaints in general). --DHeyward (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It is definitely not undue weight. WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources... Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." If it was a press release that did not get reported anywhere, I would agree with you that it would not warrant inclusion. However, the material has been reported in multiple reliable sources, so there is due weight to include it. Please see the draft page in development on the talk page. I've included the high-level assessments that touch on the committee's statement and the related responses. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Lot's of fringe viewpoints get RS coverage. We don't need to cover all of them. If we weigh the relative coverage of positive and negative, we would need a thousand pages of positive reviews to the one press release by ADC. It's not notable enough or have enough weight to carry in the American Sniper film article just as it was enough weight to include it in the ground zero mosque article. You are giving them way to much credit as the RS covered the press release but did not endorse or validate its content. You want to include the content which was not backed by reliable sources at all. ADC is a notable organization but they are not a reliable source. --DHeyward (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:DUE states that a viewpoint's prevalence is based on reliable sources. If sources like The Guardian and The Washington Post report about the statement and related details, that means it has prevalence worth covering, even in passing. Is there an aspect of

WP:NPOV that warrants excluding anything about the statement and related details? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me}

) 21:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

BS. Press releases get re-published all the time by notable organizations. The key is that the content is not widely covered. They summarized what ADC said with no fact checking or corroboration. Go read the press release that follows every notable companies earnings release. It's presented without comment. After that is when reliable sources analyze and report what is true and what is BS in the voice of the reliable source. Or they don't report anything else if its just fluff. Either way, a press release is only valid as source for the company that releases it. Even if AP carries the release, it's not attributable to AP, just as none of the ADC claims are attributable to a reliable source. Here's an example of a press release[1]. Does it matter how many sources carry it? The reliable sources make no claims about it whatsoever. NPOV isn't the issue as there is legitimate criticism, just not "threats against arabs" coming from the film. That's a

WP:FRINGE theory that is swamped by other coverage. --DHeyward (talk

) 22:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

There are two ways press releases are reported. One way is the Yahoo! Finance link you provided. That is essentially a re-published press release. However, the coverage here is about the press release. The reliable sources are quoting from it but also put it in context. For example, The Washington Post, in covering the statement, also reported that other news outlets reported instances of hate speech. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources that are reliable and independent. The sources in question here are contextualizing the statement, which is appropriate per

WP:SOURCE says mainstream publications are appropriate reliable sources to determine a viewpoint's prevalence, regardless of our own personal analysis of it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me}

) 22:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It got coverage in the "Style Blog" of the Washington Post. In terms of proportion to their prominence, they might get a letter. Not a word or paragraph. The fil as a source of anti-arab violence has virtually no prominence in the reliable sources. Zippo. --DHeyward (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Its not like the movie Taxi Driver which supposedly inspired Hinckley to shoot Reagan so he could impress Jodie Foster. Even that, the attempted assassination of a U.S. President (!) gets but two sentences! These "threats" are just stupid blogosphere comments.--MONGO 22:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It was also a one day wonder. No follow-up. Two weeks after charlie Hebdo they say a spike in threats is due to a movie? No press outlet explored this. The dutifully reported the press release and then it died. Today, ADC released a statement about a shooting in NC which it blamed on coverage of Charlie Hebdo and American Sniper. The police blame it on a neighbor dispute over parking. ADC is all fringe conspiracy nonsense that got a press release covered in one newscycle with no followup. --DHeyward (talk) 22:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

The Washington Post and The Guardian are just two of numerous reliable sources that are reporting on the statement and responses to the statement. I don't think it is necessary to reference all of them, but this should not mean that there are just two sources in news reporting that covered the statement. Also, the studio releasing its own statement condemning such rhetoric did not happen in a vacuum. In any case, I will continue developing the draft and solicit feedback from uninvolved editors. Please share any comments on the related thread on the talk page. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

In other words, our opinions don't matter and you will do whatever you want.--MONGO 00:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

What responses? Nobody responded to them. Their press release was read. It went away without a response or violence. Joe Arpaio stated that Obama's BC was forged. That press release got lots of reading over one day. Doesn't mean we report a forgery in the Obama article. It's overwhelmed by coverage actually about Obama, not made up stuff, and doesn't deserve mention. This is no different. Nobody has established this as a noteworthy controversy. Certainly the one day press coverage ocer their press release with no follow-up does not support it. There's no "there" there. --DHeyward (talk) 03

44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You may be interested in this discussion regarding WP:BLPTALK —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at

Thanks,

Edits such as this appear from my perspective to be an attempt to downplay, discredit or underestimate the existence of Islamophobia. 78.144.251.206 (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi DHeyward, I've closed and archived

here, you are indefinitely topic banned from all edits and discussion regarding User:MarkBernstein. You are also restricted from opening and noticeboard discussions or enforcement requests related to MarkBernstein without the permission of an uninvolved administrator. Gamaliel (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to repost the notice since it got mangled in my cut and paste. I apologize for the error.

As per the discussion here, you are indefinitely topic banned from all edits and discussion regarding User:MarkBernstein. You are also restricted from opening and participating in noticeboard discussions or enforcement requests related to MarkBernstein without the permission of an uninvolved administrator. Gamaliel (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't the AE solution implies that you and Orlando can't interact if that is your concern. If that is your concern, then I'll ask for clarification on that point. — Ched :  ?  20:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Ched You are an uninvolved admin. My concern is that I didn't open any noticeboard requests and when I saw the comment that was offensive, I didn't take it for enforcement, I notified two uninvolved admins. Gamaliel is insinuating that is not what happened and MarkBernstein somehow was treated differently than he would be treated with gamaliels sanction. That is not the case. Even in MarkBernstein's acceptance of Gamaliels proposal he repeated his offsite charges. He has since been brought to another AE request where he repeats the items that led to his topic ban[].

Gamaliel cited AE comments as personal attacks. I didn't make all of them and the two I did make were in the context of the fourth noticeboard action by Mark and are only in the AE space.

• It's further evidence that his contributions are a negative to the article space (I didn't say this)
• Mark's own intentions in this clarification is to drag the drama he continually creates within the Gamergate space into the campus rape disputes (I didn't say this either)
• MarkBernstein doesn't appear to be here to build the encyclopedia. (I said this with regards to "Havoc" which is a war command issued to soldiers to rape, pillage and burn and is the section header on MB's talk page. See The dogs of war (phrase) as the Shakespeare quote is Mark Bernstein's description of his meaning. User:Rich Farmbrough brought the same concern to his talk page. My comment was a reply to his AE request against me and only on that page.
• Specious and tendentious actions by MarkBernstein I made this comment when he brought an AE request against Orlando. The request was closed because it violated WP:BANEX. I'm not sure how that closure doesn't support "specious and tendentious" but again it was made only in the AE section with regard to that AE filing. This is not disruptive to the encyclopedia nor is it a personal attack. It describes his decision to open an AE request on one diff in Arbitration space. There are 3 AE requests recently involving MB, an ANI request and an ARCA request. None were initiated by me. EdJohnston was correct when he said the proper action would be to gather actual evidence and post it before enacting any sanctions. Gamaliel didn't do that and unless he reverses an ill-thought out sanction, I will be forced into a long and drawn out appeal. Gamaliel is the only one that issued a sanction from a noticeboard filing that was made in violation of
  WP:BANEX --DHeyward (talk
  ) 20:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

OK - I've got some real life things to do - I see you've posted, and I'll return and read it all later. — Ched :  ?  20:56, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I've read through a fair bit of links/diffs, and I'm still open to input from others as well. I've posted at WP:AE, and will get back to that in the near future. I honestly do understand your concerns, and I am taking those into consideration. — Ched :  ?  15:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for snapping at you. It looked to me like you had duplicated my rename notice simply to comment on the 'desperation' of the move. Jbh (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

My reading of the rule is that it specifically includes admin actions, and Gamaliel is way, way over 3RR for the day. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

You'll get nowhere bringing it to 3RR as it's arbspace and technically the clerks control it. They will also back Gamaliel up on removing inflammatory Reichstag arguments as necessarily moderating the discussion - and then block you for being disruptive if you undid his reverts. I understand the point you are making, but you may wish to use links to the specific edits you see as indicative of a problem rather than using words that are being used as a cudgel to both feign indignance and present real offense. You can find the edits that you see as problemtic in the history and just point to them without referring to the underlying distraction that is ultimately a Godwinned argument. Don't edit war on AE with an admin that considers themselves uninvolved. --DHeyward (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I've looked at the original redacted diff in question and I see no BLP violation. You acted correctly in objecting to the inclusion of that category.

Here's the thing, though. We redact violations, we don't repeat them because that's a way of perpetuating those slurs using Wikipedia as the platform. So while I understand you have every right to defend yourself against an accusation, please do not use your response to repeat that slur multiple times - six times by my count. I get the argument you've used that it's not a slur, but it's still false information about a BLP which is widely used as a slur by parties who think it is. Aside from the necessity to exercise caution when discussing BLPs, those who are unwilling to assume good faith may believe that it was an attempt on your part at slurring the subject or trolling your accuser, which will only serve to exacerbate tensions on an already overly-tense editing dispute. In the future, please refrain from repeating it at all, regardless of the context. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

micro aggression is but it was done and fighting it at the article or leaving it on my talk page served no purpose. I didn't question the rev-del or redaction as any damage from that was already done. I was surprised when he then again brought attention to it to AE focused about another editor. Bringing to my talk page last week after redaction and rev-del (note: an admin rev-del'd it and didn't warn me or take issue), followed by bringing it to an unrelated AE request, - at some point, bringing attention and links to something he considered a slur to three different venues - it ceased to be about not proliferating it and more about being a battleground. At some point, the battleground has to give way to the people being portrayed and perpetuating the term as a slur is worse than reclaiming it. The link I provided on your talk page is an excellent description and of course the dilemma. --DHeyward (talk

) 23:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

For the record, I don't consider it a slur. It is however contentions unsourced content about a living person. The link you left is why I think it should be redacted, as it makes it clear that there are individuals trying to repeat it as a means to harass. That's all I have left to say on the matter. —

Strongjam (talk

) 23:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

If we used it, it would be misgendering and that is a BLP violation and offensive. --DHeyward (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello! Please self revert your recent edits to the Gamergate Controversy article- it's under 1RR, which means you may only make 1 revert per 24 hours. If you do not, I may need to report you for your violation of it. Additionally: We cannot use unedited blog posts to source facts, we may only use them to cite the blogger's opinion, and thus your second reversion is unfortunately against policy in more ways than one. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 07:49, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

What revert? Diff please of 2nd revert (I don't think I've made 1 revert, let alone a second)? I added source. rewrote section to include name, etc. Forbes is a notable news outlet. It has editorial oversight and that meets

WP:RS - how do you defend Chu with that standard? The Forbes contributor is at least credentialed. The issue is that no one has confirmed who has filed the takedown request or why it was restored. But the takedown is not controversial, only the claims of who filed it. YouTube takes it down until a response is filed and the check if the original request is valid. No evidence that Quinn filed the request so that cannot be added. I added the attribution to satisfy your request. --DHeyward (talk

) 08:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

This isn't about Arthur Chu- it's about your violation of 1RR. Here is your first revert[2]. Here is your second[3]. Wikipedia policy on reverting states that "Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version can be considered a reversion.". If you are at all confused with the removal of many of the references to Erik Kain, perhaps you should check the talk page where it was discussed? PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Please show diffs to the previous version that you think I returned it to because I think my edit is substantially different than any previous version, including my own. 1RR is to prevent edit warring, not improving sourcing and accuracy. Do you you have an issue with the current wording? --DHeyward (talk) 08:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Please focus on the issue at hand- your reversions. My edit here[4] was reverted by your edit here[5]. When I reverted your reversion[6], clearly stating that we could not support that with the sources we were using, you inserted a blog post to cite for your preferred version[7]. Again: I request that you self revert rather than requiring me to report this. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused now. In your first edit, you removed "critical of Quinn"[8]. I didn't restore "critical" or anything like it. This [9] is not a revert as you removed "criticism" and "removed", I just shortened it to video. The diff that you are saying I reverted to is this even though "critical" is removed, and views are attributed? I don't see this as a revert. Your welcome to improve on it. I am not edit warring, I just don't understand exactly what your objection is. --DHeyward (talk) 09:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

A key difference, as I see it, is your change of 'video had a DMCA takedown request filed against it' to 'video was removed because of DMCA takedown request' (note: I am paraphrasing slightly). I advise you read

WP:REVERT. Are you going to self-revert your violation of 1RR or not? PeterTheFourth (talk

) 09:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Given your conduct, I find myself with no avenue available to address your violation of policy except by filing a enforcement request. I believe asking for a self-revert for violations of 1RR is more than reasonable, and I regret that you find it so troubling. I'll post a notification here after I've submitted the enforcement request. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I took out 'removed'. What more did you want? You're filing that these are substantially different versions and needs to be reverted? --DHeyward (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I find the way you've focused on arguing content over acknowledging your small mistake and fixing it very troubling. When you took out removed, you put in other language ("It has since been restored.") so that the meaning was essentially identical. This is absolutely violating the spirit, if not the law, of the 1RR restrictions. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Per our conversation above, and the unfortunate inability to conclude this between ourselves, I have started an arbitration enforcement request here about your violation of 1RR restrictions. PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

• Seeing your labeling of PeterTheFourth just reminds me of Hipocrite doing the same to Rhoark. I'm sure you've seen that? In both cases, I don't think it's necessary. Just my two cents. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 03:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• No, I don't recall that. Alts are allowed, just not in project space. --DHeyward (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Given that you have blanked the page that another editor had placed up for deletion, you should also get rid of this archive of it. Cheers! PeterTheFourth (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Just a reminder. I have edited your post because I had recently discovered that he got blocked. Thus it had to be 24.[10] Thank you. Delibzr (talk) 12:37, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Please do not move my comments on another editor's talk page as you did here.

@

Dreadstar: No, I didn't move your post. Here's your post.[11]. MarkBernstein removed it.[12]. I restored with a ping to the two admins that he had an agreement with not to do that sort of thing as he deleted it rather quickly. [13]. --DHeyward (talk

) 16:19, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Per

Dreadstar ☥

16:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been here 10 years. I am aware he can remove them. My intent was only to notify the two admins, in context, the warning you gave. I didn't just restore the warning, it was also a comment. I didn't care that he removed the warning, only that he has made agreements for his conduct with those two admins. He is/was free to remove my comment as well. --DHeyward (talk) 16:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Nobody listens and some that claim to be "first on the button" seem to have both fingers in their ears. Maybe a few rounds will wake them up. --DHeyward (talk) 05:00, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a discussion about you at Arbitration Enforcement. Have a wonderful day. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

A strong suggestion from me, a defrocked admin emeritus, is to not only stay away from all topics and persons related to GamerGate, but to run away! It is a battle not worth fighting and will do nothing but bring misery to all!--MONGO 13:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

• sigh* I try. --DHeyward (talk) 01:41, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Even if they don't topic ban you I'd run away from that cesspool. There are other areas that are of greater significance by a mile. We have much work to do in other areas that really do matter.--MONGO 01:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I rarely edit there and when I do, it's usually talk page (as the latest foray was removing a blog reference from the talk page that was unsuitable for reference in the article - it's still removed even though my objection was answered). I think anything coming from AE starting from a TBanned editor is out of process and I'd like to see a case from scratch, not anger fomenting that MB was TBanned. There is literally zero diffs of disruption, edit warring, presonal attacks or anything. I'm not that into the topic that I get emotionally involved and I am bewildered by those that apparently are. There is anger at MarkBernsteins TBan by some but it's not from any disruption or incivility or anything else that would be sanctionable. I'm baffled. --DHeyward (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I hold those AE admins in high regard but there is no justice in a topic ban for you IMHO. I think one and all are just tired of anything related to that topic so any issue, no matter how slight, seems to be triggering the ban hammer.--MONGO 02:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

If that were true, I wouldn't be up on the board. --DHeyward (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• I was referring to
  WP:ARCA. See statements by Hipocrite, TenOfAllTrades and the replies from Arb Thryduulf starship.paint ~ ¡Olé!
  05:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

It's a bit late to be telling you this, but I only just realised: you didn't ping MastCell with this. Pinging only works if you link and sign all in one edit. See [14]. (He knows about it now, though, so no need to re-alert.) Bishonen | talk 22:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC).

No worries. You answered quick enough. Sorry anout my stalkers following me. --DHeyward (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You think they did? I actually think all the people who posted in the thread probably watch my page. I've met them before, and they're welcome there. Bishonen | talk 23:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC).

It seemed odd. My simple question about whether a particular editor should be commenting in WP space turned into a spiral into off topic stuff. I didn't comment on it so if it's not concerning to you, no worries. --DHeyward (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

[15]....--MONGO 18:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Would you care to have a look at the latest issues being discussed and give some input? BP OMowe (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

This is a notification to let you know that there is a

Thanks. And have a nice day. NickCT (talk) 18:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I must be daft...but where is American Politics 1?--MONGO 01:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Found it...it should have been titled simply Arzel. Is there a pattern here...seems after nosuccess in one venue the complatants proceed to the next venues. In the Arzel case the end result of an RfcU against Arzel was mainly a word of caution. This led soon to the arbitration case. In the Collect case, it followed in the heels of a long Afd battle where those complaining against Collect lost.--MONGO 01:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for my defense. I guess they don't know my history of working on liberal subjects like national parks, Retreat of glaciers since 1850 and supporting the FAC on the Hillary Clinton article while also defending BLP on the George Bush article where I led an Rfc effort to keep things like calling him a "drunk" out of that article (though it did end up in a daughter article). Pretty perplexing...since most of my work could be broadly construed as related at least tangentially to American Politics, this looks like a site ban for me. Well. Not sure what to say to this matter. Little ole me isn't worth waging too big a battle for so don't get yourself in a scrape.--MONGO 05:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Be careful of 3RR. I've asked for page protection but in the meantime it's best no one be blocked.

These are blatant BLP violations. I don't think I am close to 3RR though. --DHeyward (talk) 00:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Adding a source is a BLP vio?   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:54, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Attributing other peoples words to Watts is a BLP. So is continuing to use WTW like "claims" when it's only to disparage the subject. --DHeyward (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Huh? No one is attributing words to him he didn't say, especially not in the edit you reverted, and saying he "claimed" something instead of "wrote" it isn't disparaging him.   — Jess· Δ♥ 01:00, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

The source appears to only discuss what Delingpole and Rawls "claims," not Watts. At least I couldn't find it. "Claims" is a

WP:WTW and is not a hard concept to understand. When we can use language like "wrote" or "said" in place of words like "claims", we do it. Go disparage living people on another site if you feel the need to do so. --DHeyward (talk

) 01:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward: Your edit here is unsigned so it might be missed that it's you supporting "1". Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI the {{

Dang, I always forget that. Thx. --DHeyward (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the conversation I'm having on their talkpage is pretty good support for the 30/500 restriction. Zad68 deserves a great deal of credit for coming up with the idea. I'm not sure why you feel I'm somehow involved, this user's conduct has been an on-and-off problem for a while now. Acroterion (talk) 02:50, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Acroterion I think your previous block makes you involved if I am reading the guideline correctly only because this is a different area. I agree with the 500/30 rule as I said on the AE board but ForbiddenRocky and PtF are SPA's created during and after ARbCom. It's WP:DUCK. If the rule were 500 non-GamerGate edits, they would have nothing to edit. PtF seems to have only made reverts. If FDJK001 needs blocked, you may want to wait until other admins that haven't blocked him weigh in. The answer won't be different than yours and I suspect it will happen. There won't be an exception and I certainly didn't advocate one--DHeyward (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I blocked them because their username was - I kid you not - User:Uraswhole [16]. I unblocked them when they produced a well-composed statement of regret [17], but it's not been smooth since then. Acroterion (talk) 03:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Aah. That's a bit trivial to be involved. redacting. --DHeyward (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem, it's so easy to see shadows everywhere with all that's going on these days. In any case I'm not planning on blocking them for not listening to me, I've gotten used to that. Acroterion (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Aand now they're trying the old 500-trivial-edits thing. Jeez. Acroterion (talk) 03:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I value your input at

14:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Your defense of me is appreciated. MONGO 01:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Please clarify

What does your last sentence here mean? Woodroar (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Can't see diff. Somebody must have made BLP violation and deleted that rev. --DHeyward (talk) 03:38, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It was your comment that was redacted. I think it was interpreted as a reference to an early video about GG. I think it was just coincide you choose that number though.

Strongjam (talk

) 03:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The 5 horseman? Isn't that the term used to describe people "protecting" the article? I've seen TRPOD and MB use quite often. --DHeyward (talk) 03:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll email so that I can avoid being coy.

Strongjam (talk

) 03:47, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I got email from Gamaliel too and I just saw. Seems a big leap. --DHeyward (talk) 03:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Sure but she's one of about 20. I brought them up at Arbcom and the talk page. google "influential women in gaming" and look at the results from forbes and other magazines and it's not Sarkeesian, Wu or Quinn. The "rape and death threats driving women from software" meme is just made up nonsense. Women face hurdles in tech but it's not the hurdles they experienced in high school as some would like to portray it. Some of that perception appears to be driven by angst from their own past as outlined by Arthur Chu. --DHeyward (talk) 03:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi

'c.s.n.s.'

04:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)