User talk:DHeyward/Archive 18

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.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has, per the above, accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at

I have started an arbitration enforcement request here. Woodroar (talk) 06:33, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		For remaining civil. Vordrak (talk) 17:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi DHeyward, you violated the 1RR at Gamergate: [1][2]. Nobody cared enough to even complain about it in an edit summary much less warn you, take you to 3RRNB, or AE, and I see you stopped reverting and took it to Talk, so no action, but 1RR is still in effect there. Zad68 01:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Zad68 I don't think this is correct as I made an edit based on [3] followed by 1 revert. The second revert would be a violation which didn't happen. The edit is based on the reasoning below. --DHeyward (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

There's also no way, in that climate, a 1RR violation wouldn't be reported. It wasn't reported because it doesn't exist. There is no second revert. --DHeyward (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

...Also, noticing Tony's comment in the section title WP:FORUM above, regarding a comment of yours with timestamp 4:38. I do see this one [4] with a timestamp 00:30, 19 June 2015 where you appear to be doing your own detective work instead of summarizing sources, I warned you about doing this sort of thing earlier here. You appear to have some legal or maybe forensic training, which is great, but we need to be editors and not detectives. Zad68 01:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Zad68 Using inductive reasoning is part of sourcing and is specifically not FORUM. It is available from very reliable sources that Sarkeesian received 3 threats in Utah. The first threat, on a Monday, was the shooting threat and did not mention GamerGate and was the only shooting threat she ever received (the FBI treated it separately, as well). The second threat was not specific and mentioned gamergate (but not shooting). The third threat was also not specific but did not mention GamerGate. That is not FORUM to point out the WP:Inaccuracy problem of saying that GamerGate supporters threatened the largest mass shooting since Montreal when the shooting threat was not made with any reference to Gamergate (indeed, Sarkeesian herself tweeted she received three threats, only one of them mentioning GamerGate - she was especially troubled by the shooting threat but that was not from GamerGate). As the sources stated Sarkeesian received threats long before GamerGate, largely related to anti-feminism, and they fit the previous pattern. I hope you can see the difference between inductive reasoning based on sources that were provided and an accusation of WP:FORUM simply because I disagree with an inaccurate lumping made by an inaccurate source. --DHeyward (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's the source [5]. After the mass shooting threat was sent to the school late Monday, a second threat arrived Tuesday. That one, USU spokesman Tim Vitale confirmed, claimed affiliation with the controversial and sometimes violent online video gamers' movement known as GamerGate. and Sarkeesian said the threats were specific, with one claiming, "I have at my disposal a semi-automatic rifle, multiple pistols, and a collection of pipe bombs." and and finally The most detailed threat, which has prompted an FBI investigation, does not identify as a GamerGate action but rather a USU student attacking feminism. Only one threat was shooting. It was on Monday. Only one threat was GamerGate. It was on Tuesday. the Venn diagram does not overlap. That's not FORUM, it's inductive reasoning perfectly allowed and accepted and sourced. Gamaliel should review as well since he is accusing me of FORUM as well as 1RR both of which are incorrect in this instance. --DHeyward (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

The subsection doesn't support the lead either

Gamergate controversy#Subsequent harassment where they also differentiate GamerGate threats and the shooting threat. --DHeyward (talk

) 21:21, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I have often disagreed with you elsewhere (and you may well disagree with me here), but your submission to the ArbCom case has exactly nailed what the problem actually is. I am sure there will be many wasted bytes on that page, but really yours is/are the question(s) that need to be clarified. Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I'm actually really bad at remembering disagreements so if we have, I am unaware. I remember arguments rather than arguers. It makes me crappy at digging up diffs. Thanks for the comment though. I try to be objective even though "objective" usually is skewed by personal views. --DHeyward (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the

"This is me."
Thank you for beginning articles such as

awesome Wikipedian

!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

Hi, I just re-added a See also section to the Rachel Dolezal article with the terms (Allophilia and Wigger) and Cultural appropriation. My addition was reverted with your statement that there are no sources attributing these qualities to Ms. Dolezal. WP policy on the See also section does not require sources attributing the qualities in the See also section to the article subject. Indeed, WP policy even says that the links in See also can be indirectly related to the article topic, to "enable readers to explore tangentially related topics":

Regarding WP policy on the See also section, here is what the WP Manual of Style has to say about See also sections:

• "Contents: A bulleted list, preferably alphabetized, of internal links to related Wikipedia articles. Consider using Columns-list or Div col if the list is lengthy. The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." (bolding added by me)(from
  WP:SEEALSO).OnBeyondZebrax • TALK
  14:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Any particular reason why court cases are not citable, seems a little odd to me but always willing to learn. In addition, the original article was entirely self-promotional and I'm pretty sure Bingham wrote it himself. As it doesn't link anywhere else I was tempted to nominate for deletion. WCM_email 21:14, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Please read

WP:BLPPRIMARY. Court cases are specifically called out. We need secondary sources to interpret court cases. This is WP policy. I don't know if he is notable or not. Deleted or stubbed would be preferred over primary sourced information. --DHeyward (talk

) 21:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

OK I've tagged everything that I sourced through the court case, the article was a bit of a mess when I found it. It was written by Bingham and was entirely self-promotional and gave a one sided account. The problem is aside from Bingham's

WP:SPS biography and his own websites, other than the brief coverage of the case there is nothing I could find to source the article outside of the court records. WCM_email

10:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and hints, my first foray into BLP and now certainly my last. Does everyone threaten to sue if they don't like their article? WCM_email 22:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm pinging you and MONGO - I asked the question on ANI asking for input on what specific list of articles you'd suggest we use for the sanction, as the two of you objected to the broadly construed part but otherwise supported. If you can add any specific list suggestions there in the ANI thread I would appreciate it. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:59, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@Georgewilliamherbert: I put inline under your question under MONGO's comment [6]. --DHeyward (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted your recent changes. Look closely at the timestamp of the nomination and at the revision history for the AfD discussion: The nomination commenced on 07:03, 4 July 2015 - 7 days have passed, not 5. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Northamerica1000 I'm looking at the date of the opening paragraph signature. Why the discrepancy? Should have dropped a note before reopening. Sorry about that. --DHeyward (talk) 04:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding this comment: I'm not sure I understand the hockey analogy, particularly I suppose because there is no "second-man in" rule. I'm guessing you're saying ANI is like the third-man in rule because the third admin action, restoring the first action (that is, wheel-warring), results in a severe penalty, whereas for Arbitration Enforcement, the reversal of the first action results in a severe penalty. But when your subsequent sentences start discussing "block/argue" and "close without block/argue" and you say that this new path would be susceptible to gaming like ANI, my mind gets distracted trying to figure out if the new path has a third-man in analogy. In any case, your argument does not rely on the hockey analogy so it's not a big issue; I just thought I'd mention that personally I find it more distracting than illustrative. isaacl (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Isaacl: That's my bad as my mind veered off not realizing everyone didn't veer off with me :).. Hockey implemented the "3rd man in" rule to keep fights between two people. Even fights ended in a draw which is good for hockey rather than an increasin brawl.

Better (no hockey) - let me know if this is less confusing: <nr> Wikipedia used the "3rd admin action" rule in order to stop wheel warring and the escalating block/unblock wars. In essence, every contentious block became a stalemate that always ended in the status quo prior to the block. ArbCom realized that stalemates/status quo results were part of the problem in contentious areas. AE was a process to let the first block stand, thereby changing status quo by limiting the second action. WP is okay with "status quo" block/unblock cycles at ANI, 3RR, etc. In AE areas where they want the status quo to change, it is not okay. If we let admins declare "status quo" is an AE action unto itself and can't be changed, we've recreated the situation AE was designed to solve. We certainly don't allow "no action" to be the first admin action at ANI.
Imagine this scenario at ANI:

Admin 1 I have found that anyone who believes "status quo" for Editor A should change is incorrect. No block of Editor A is warranted per consensus. Closing.

Admin 2 I disagree with the close and the finding of consensus. I just blocked Editor A and changed the "status quo." I left the block notice and appeal info on his talk page

Admin 3 I am treating Admin 1's statement of maintaining "status quo" and closing as the 1st admin action that was undone with a "status quo" changing block. A subsequent unblock is the third admin action and would be wheel warring.

Most likely at ANI, no one would treat "Admin 1"s statement to maintain "status quo" and the close as an admin action and the subsequent unclose and block by Admin 2 is the first admin action. Admin 3 would be pilloried and a subsequent unblock to return to "status quo" would only be the second admin action and allowed. At ANI it would not be wheel-warring to reverse Admin 2's block. In essence, the status quo of "unblocked" is maintained at ANI because findings that don't change "status quo" are not admin actions, only actions that change "status quo" are relevant. Admin 1 would not likely claim that the reversal of Admin 2 is wheel-warring or that any of Admin 1's actions were "admin actions."

Now let's look at what some are proposing at AE, hypothically, for identical complaint and identical hypothetical admins:

Admin 1 I have found that anyone who believes "status quo" for Editor A should change is incorrect. No block of Editor A is warranted per consensus. Closing.

Admin 2 I disagree with the close and the finding of consensus. I just blocked Editor A and changed the "status quo." I logged the change at AE action log.

Admin 3 I am treating Admin 1's statement of maintaining "status quo" as the 1st admin action that was undone with a "status quo" changing block. The block undoes an AE action against policy.

The ANI scenario happens everyday at ANI. Admin 1 was not taking action by maintaining status quo and closing the discussion. Admin 2 makes the first admin action action by blocking. Any other admin can reverse that block as the second admin action. That tends to support the block/unblock cycle that maintains status quo.
But at the arbcom case, some editors are arguing that the identical action by Admin 1 at AE is an administrative action despite the fact it is never the case at ANI and Admin 1 would not make the case that it was. The end result of such an interpretation is that, once again, status quo of unblocked is maintained. AE was created to turn the tables on "status quo" and essentially force change by flipping the tables and burdens. It is extremely inconsistent to argue that Admin 1 isn't taking admin action at ANI but is taking it at AE. We lend no credence at ANI to "no action" or "close" statements. The first change to the status quo is the admin action. The definitions need to be consistent and the "ends don't justify the means" by which we evaluate an action. AE defaults to the first "status quo" changing action with deliberate intent because the wheel-war policy makes ANI default to returning to the original status quo and left the community unable to change it. --DHeyward (talk) 07:47, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the format of the argument, I think it's great to lay out the scenarios and your reasoning; I suggest trimming it down a bit, though, to make it more concise. Regarding the argument itself: I don't agree that no credence is given to discussion closures at ANI where no action is taken. Admin who ignore a closure by consensus will be asked to reverse their decision and if they don't, often an arbitration case request will be made. The key difference with AE is that it's not clear that a filed request for enforcement requires a consensus agreement to enact a sanction (as opposed to an appeal/review of the sanction once imposed, where the procedure is clear that consensus is required).

I think there is something to be said for the essence of wheel-warring to not be defined by a pure count of actions, but by taking an action that follows a restoration of the original situation (what you refer to as "status quo"), since the default in a no-consensus situation is to keep the original situation. If you are interested in following up on this in the workshop, please let me know; otherwise, I may consider submitting some analysis on this topic. isaacl (talk) 14:27, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, DHeyward. 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 {{

ygm

}} template.

You're going to revert the addition of the word 'controversial' from the lede of the

87.231.139.167 (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Just want to clarify, from a law enforcement perspective, the advice is absolutely to be non-confrontational with harassers. This is quite different from, say Gandhi's view of active, non-violent resistance. I think there are many that recall active, non-violent resistance that has ended badly for the resistors in the short term though may be good for a "movement." Gandhi himself took many beatings and students at Kent State were killed.

Huh? Since when is non-violent resistance "confrontational"? You've got a bit of Orwellian doublespeak going on there. I'm not the least surprised. Viriditas (talk) 20:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas:Active, Non-violent resistance is very confrontational. And active. And provocative. It seeks to draw attention to injustice. It often provokes a violent response. Sometimes creates martyrs. Are you unaware that active, non-violent resistance exists and many have been beaten and killed for it? Or perhaps you simply want to impose a duty that people risk their lives rather than be given personal safety advice? Maybe you should read Dharasana Satyagraha and try to understand the difference between risking your own life seeking social justice for a societal wrong or someone else seeking personal safety and the choice that a person can make without your commentary. Giving advice like "seek a safe place" is NOT giving in to the harassers. If you think so, go picket a women's shelter but stop berating practical advices being given to individuals that are indeed seeking personal safety, not a political statement or martyrdom. --DHeyward (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm talking about your continued misrepresentation and historical revisionism, not the issue concerning Lightbreather, and I made that clear in my original comment. I notice that you tried to change the issue and blame the victims. For example, four students were killed at Kent State (some would say "murdered") by the National Guard, not because of anything they "did". Two of those murdered were said to have been involved in the protest, while another two were not and were walking to class, one of whom was an ROTC member. It is very clear that these were random killings as their average distance was 345 feet away. And once again, we see not a single person was held responsible or held to account for these killings. Viriditas (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Viriditas: How is it revisionist to point out that "active, non-violent resistance" has lead to death and violence? No one is blaming the dead or injured so I am not sure where you are getting that from. We cannot and should not make a "protester" out of a victim of harassment if that is not their choice. They can choose whatever action they feel is in their interest including calling the police or lying low or name changes. It's quite presumptuous to leave those choices off the table "on principle" if our main concern is a safe editing environment for Wikipedians. Leaving safety choices off the table because you find it defeats your personal views on social change is akin to those victims that choose shelters a coward. Police don't do it and they readily give out the numbers of women's shelters so victims can lie low and be anonymous. Police don't make victims go, though, so if they choose to stay and fight it in court or face their assailant openly, they may do so. the police will tell them it may be unsafe, though. They have the right to stay or go. No judgement is made and no solution is off the table - unlike those that opposed having "cleanstart" or "police" as a principle method of dealing with harassment. --DHeyward (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, you live in a different reality than I do. In the reality I inhabit, peaceful, innocent students were murdered by the National Guard at Kent State, two of whom were merely walking to class. Nobody was ever held to account for their actions under the law. You blamed these people for their own deaths. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Clearly, you have a reading comprehension problem as I clearly said they were not responsible for their own deaths. Victims of domestic violence are not responsible for their injuries either, but I don't "blame them" if they want to go to a shelter or that offering them the choice is "blaming the victim." In Kent State, there is no blame or shame in those students that chose to leave the protest when the national guard showed up with rifles. Please don't tell me you blame them. Please don't tell me you think they should have been forced to stay or that their choice to leave should have been removed as an option. Would you shame a protester that stood up and said "Hey, those soldiers have rifles, we should leave" or would you recognize that they had a right to express their own views on personal safety?--DHeyward (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I think it is clear that the reading comprehension problem is on your end. What part of "two people walking to class who have nothing to do with the protests but got murdered anyway" aren't you getting? Just admit that you enjoy historical revisionism. I hear the Ministry of Truth is hiring. Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I never said they weren't. Gandhi was murdered too. Doesn't change anything I said and you can still protest outside women's domestic violence shelters advocating their closure because their existence "blames the victim" when the abused seek them out. That appears to be your point if you disagree with what I wrote. Just don't bring that nonsense to my talk page again. --DHeyward (talk) 08:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

What brought all this on from Viriditas?--MONGO 09:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker): This, MONGO. Bishonen | talk 09:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

So...Viriditas has had no participation in that discussion, reads what DHeyward posted and shows up here to pick a fight? That's familiar.--MONGO 09:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Would you care to explain your rationale behind your edit at

I tried to start a discussion with you and instead you deleted more sourced content. I will treat further deletions as vandalism if you refrain from discussing the subject. Some guy (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Please be mindful of 3RR on Cecil. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: Did I revert? diff? Not intentional if I even did one..--DHeyward (talk) 14:56, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity did you actually come here to tell me to be mindful when I have no reverts and you just reverted me to an arguable BLP violation? I'll bring it to talk page but if we can describe a thing without "allegedly", we do. --DHeyward (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi! I'm leaving you this note because you recently particpated in a discussion that resulted in a deletion request which you may be interested in. NickCT (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, DH. I spent two years of undergraduate school and two years of graduate school doing statistical analysis in an econometric context. When I saw the graph plotting the trends, I had exactly the same reaction as you: only the trend lines for the percentages matter, not the raw numbers [7]. Glad to see someone has a grasp of math and stats around here. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

	Hello, DHeyward. You're invited to join 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 members. Thanks for your consideration. North America1000 09:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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