User talk:EncyclopediaBob

Thank you for the welcome! —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 18:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised

discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here

.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means

uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks

. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Hipocrite (talk) 09:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you.

@Hipocrite: I assume you're referring to this single comment on User:DHeyward's talk page which I left specifically because he showed an interest in WP:BLPTALK policy. Additionally, I wonder how it would be logically possible to notify a single user in a partisan (or non-partisan) manner, unless you're suggesting all discussion notifications must now come in pairs. I'd caution you to examine future situations more carefully before making accusations. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 09:47, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps don't canvass people. Hipocrite (talk) 13:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the lamest accusation of canvassing ever. It didn't meet a single one of the canvassing criteria. Singular user, it was friendly, no POV in the message (I honestly thought he was telling policy had changed), not excessive and I have no idea what EBs view of the topic is. Lamest warning ever, User:Hipocrite. Perhaps you should stop templating editors? --DHeyward (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks,

@EvergreenFir: Thank you! Your summary in the filing is balanced and comprehensive and appears to be the result of significant effort. I hope this will result in a decisive resolution of both BLP and BLPTALK policy. —EncyclopediaBob (talk)

Hi EncyclopediaBob, I've closed and archived

I just got back on Wiki and noticed your post to NBSB here [1], while you say a single incident isn't worth the AE filing, he also made this edit to Mark Bernstein's talk page [2] which would also be a violation. I was considering doing an AE filing, but time on wiki is not something I have much of, particularly if I have to learn AE format. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your concern. While the talk page edit shows a continued involvement in the topic area, which is disappointing, I'm primarily concerned with the integrity of article space. My aim in any AE filing would be to minimize disruption to the encyclopedia and promote constructive editing — sometimes that's are best achieved by sanctioning unproductive editors, sometimes, as I believe in this case, a simple warning without all the sturm und drang of an AE case will more effective. That's my opinion at least. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is that a good indicator of future behavior is past behavior. And when editors do not honor the restrictions placed on them by the community/arbcom, they demonstrate contempt for the project, which includes integrity for article space. This comes from the mentality that you are not wrong and that the project is wrong. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reasonable concern. My advice would be to give them rope: if they don't use it great, everyone wins, if they do, it will make the hanging easier. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've been warned about violating

It seems we also differ in our interpretation of

WP:INVOLVED —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 08:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

How so? And what does it have to do with

Dreadstar ☥ 08:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

I'd be curious to hear how you think Dreadstar is involved (and where an editor with six weeks' experience acquired such an intimate familiarity with policy), but I'm not involved by any stretch of the imagination and I completely endorse his warning. By repeatedly advocating for the inclusion of a source that that has been rejected and which contains content grossly unsuitable for an encyclopaedia, and canvassing in support of that campaign, you are rapidly heading for sanctions. If you carry on the way you're going, you're very likely to end up blocked or topic-banned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

His warning was reasonable, however: (a) I hope your choice of tense doesn't suggest you feel Hipocrite's was (b) I'd expect an administrator, about whom the offending comment was made in a discussion in which he'd participated to avoid issuing it regardless of merit.

I have not "repeatedly" advocated for the inclusion of any source. Note my initial, unanswered inquiries regarding misapplication of BLP policy all dealt with hypotheticals; I heeded the advice of more senior editors in those threads and seized on a specific instance when it presented itself, in order to address the larger question. I don't care whether this source is included I care whether policy permits the inclusion of similar sources. If I cant pose that question hypothetically and risk sanction by posing it specifically, how do you suggest I proceed? I intend to pursue community consensus regarding the actions of this handful of administrators to the extent policy allows, so please clarify: by "carry on the way you're going" are you're referring to this single instance of WP:CANVASSING a single editor or is there some other action I've taken you can reasonably identify as improper? If so please let me know so I can avoid repeating it as well. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 01:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This is obviously an alternate account created to promote a point of view and to pursue wiki-litigation in a highly contentious topic area, and thus violates the letter and spirit of our policies on
  alternate account use. MastCell ^Talk 17:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

EncyclopediaBob (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm not a sockpuppet. I began following wikipedia during the Gamergate arbitration case, registering approximately one month later, then watching for another month. In that time I noticed a repeated, conspicuous action on the Gamergate talk pages: links were redacted and content removed with the invocation of

WP:BLPTALK which suggested with very few exceptions merely linking content on a talk page was not a BLP violation. But that's not how I saw it applied. So I posted to the help desk for clarification. That was apparently the wrong place to post, something a sockpuppet should have known. Then I posted to the BLPTALK talk page again the wrong place. I finally found resolution on BLPN and in an AE clarification request

initiated by another editor. In both cases the majority consensus aligned with my reading of policy and against its application, e.g. links had been redacted because other articles on the linked site contained BLP violations, or because the comments below an article might contain them.

The majority of my early edits concerned policy and, as my primary policy concern was affirmed by experienced editors (halting the misapplication of

WP:BLPTALK

in the Gamergate space) they were, I believe, to the benefit of the encyclopedia. I've made relatively few article edits because my interests lie in a contentious area where I've seen a number of editors blocked or topic banned for policy violations. Consequently it seemed reasonable to familiarize myself with policy before editing; it seems unreasonable to equate that caution with wrongdoing. If you review my few edits I believe you'll find they're largely neutral and accompanied by civil talk page discussion.

My next and only other significant edits concerned the AE request I filed here, the only action I've initiated against any editor. It came after two (apparently ineffectual) talk page warnings to the editor [4] [5], weeks apart concerning the same article, prompted by my reading of

WP:DR. Despite this the editor accused me of filing the request to to "stir up drama." My intent was the opposite: following procedure to prevent the existing drama spilling into new spaces. Again, as in the case of my BLP posting, my familiarity came from the many AE requests filed in this space, and my justification is evidenced by the majority of commenting administrators agreeing the editor's actions violated his topic ban and later, by an AE Clarification request with all commenting arbitrators

agreeing the relevant topic is covered by the topic ban.

I could understand this block if my edits were disruptive or violated NPOV or my "wiki-lawyering" was to the detriment of the encyclopedia, but none of that is the case. Unless you see edits in my history suggesting sockpuppetry or showing I've "probably also violate[d] relevant topic-area sanctions" it seems the blocking editor was simply unhappy with the arbitration committee's sanctions and chose to block me for requesting they be enforced. I also object to the charge that this is a "throwaway" account. If it were I wouldn't have rewritten this unblock request so many times, instead I'd be posting from my new "throwaway." This is the only account I've ever registered on Wikipedia and I'd like to continue with it despite the likelihood that this block and my edit history result in additional scrutiny. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 05:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

On balance of probability, I consider that you are most likely an alternative account created to push on this topic. In other words, I don't buy your assertion that you are purely interested in this obscure nuance of Wikipedia. Consequently, I am declining your request to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Statement by Ryk72

NB: Apologies to EncyclopediaBob for this interruption on their talk page, and to the wider community if this statement is out of process.

To Admins reviewing the unblock request above:

I have interacted with EncyclopediaBob on a number of occasions, primarily in regard to our seeking clarity on the purpose, intent & application of

While EncyclopediaBob has certainly participated in some contentious areas, I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence of any disruption in those areas to warrant a block or topic ban on those grounds.

Nor do I believe that there is sufficient evidence that this account is in breach of

@

Ryk72: Thank you for the compliments and your endorsement. And in case I'm unable to offer it later: thank you for your contributions to BLPTALK. I doubt we'd have achieved any resolution without your thoughtful arguments and persistence. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 23:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

@PhilKnight: I intend to appeal this review. Can you clarify which "obscure nuance" you're referring to so I can best respond? —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The application or misapplication of policy regarding BLPTALK. PhilKnight (talk) 16:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for the prompt response. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second block appeal

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

EncyclopediaBob (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Reviewing administrator User:PhilKnight declined my unblock request with this summary:

"In other words, I don't buy your assertion that you are purely interested in this obscure nuance of Wikipedia."

He clarified that the "obscure nuance" was BLPTALK policy but his intent is still unclear to me. If "purely" is the operative word, he's correct - I'm not purely interested in policy for policy's sake. I never suggested I was. I'm interested in it specifically because it was misapplied on the Gamergate talk pages - but I don't believe that's a blockable offense.

I assume instead he intends it as an example of policy that, as a new user, I should not be familiar with and so it's evidence of sockpuppetry (the reason I was blocked.) In response: I've been active in the Gamergate space for months and a review of the Gamergate sanctions log just since I registered shows five blocks or bans (including one AE request) for violation of exactly that policy; all previous to my first post about it and in addition to the numerous unsanctioned redactions citing the same policy. Sanctions:

1. Singdavion indefinitely topic banned from Gamergate for BLP violations, edit warring, battleground mentality, SPA -Gamaliel 17 January 2015; excerpt: "us[ing] Wikipedia as a forum to disparage living individuals" (link)

1. DHeyward blocked 48 hours for BLP violations, using talk page as a forum by -HJ Mitchell 18 January 2015; excerpt: "This block is for repeated BLP violations on Talk:GamerGate controversy ... and for repeatedly posting links to sources you knew and were told were unreliable and which contained material that was no suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia." (link)

1. Protonk blocked 24 hours for an egregious BLP violation (and advocating ignoring of BLP) on Talk:Gamergate controversy -HJ Mitchell 22:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC), (link)

1. Crisis blocked for a week and indefinitely topic-banned from GamerGate for inappropriate use of a talk page and BLP violations. -HJ Mitchell 15:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC); excerpt: "a tangentially relevant screed directed at named living people on the page Talk:Gamergate_controversy" (link)

1. Retartist indefinitely banned from "any article, page, or discussion relating to GamerGate, broadly construed" for inserting BLP-violating external links after having previously been offered guidance on such (see AE request). -HJ Mitchell 16:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC); excerpt: BLP violations on Talk:Gamergate (AE case link)

By this point I was only aware of it, and while I had read the policy (all

two paragraphs) I thought I must have misunderstood it because it was being applied so differently. So I asked the help desk in my first first post

, quoting the policy and asking if my understanding was correct:

As I understand WP:BLPTALK, it permits, when discussing potentially BLP-violating sources, linking those sources on article talk pages so long as the BLP-violating content is not repeated on the talk page. This seems to be the relevant text:

For example, it would be appropriate to begin a discussion by stating "this link has serious allegations about subject; should we summarize this someplace in the article?"

Would this be a correct understanding of the policy? —EncyclopediaBob 17:37, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

And in my next post I ask if there's additional relevant reading (same link):

Thank you for the clarification, your example aligns with my understanding of policy. Can you point me to the section (or page) that addresses source quality? —EncyclopediaBob 18:02, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I should note that my question re:source quality was specific to linked sources compliant with BLPTALK; I was not asking for directions to

User:Ryk72's post in that discussion that I discovered WP:BLP Talk

where he had initiated a new discussion which I participated in. What part of this suggests I'm an experienced editor?

For further evidence of my new-ness see this followup where I incorrectly suggest a source would qualify as a

WP:SPS

because I've apparently misunderstood that policy, as explained in Dreadstar's response (see link):

The possibility of using that particular site as an RS seems remote, but I believe it has potential as an WP:SPS for information about the movement. Is seems impossible however to discuss that broadly without risking redaction or even sanction. I'm curious as well if there's precedent (pre-Gamergate) for applying BLP to links of any kind (even libelous) on talk pages. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 19:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

EDIT: Note also that in all of my postings I was careful not to link these sources until an overwhelming consensus was established even though my reading of the policy and the resulting discussions suggested they were permitted - out of respect for your policies and processes.

I don't think editors not involved in the Gamergate space appreciate just how quickly a new user will become acquainted with at least a subset of policies, given the constant talk page arguments and frequent sanctions. But there's really nothing in my edit history suggesting I'm anything other than a new editor involved in a contentious space and editing cautiously because of that. There are a handful of policies I've researched extensively out of apparent necessity but my caution in large part is due to the many policies I'm still unfamiliar with; and I'm trying to avoid wasting editor time or risking sanction with edits that violate them.

I ask the reviewing administrator to please take 15 minutes to review my edit history and the links I included for evidence of sockpuppetry before permanently banning me from Wikipedia. And if the evidence suggests otherwise, please follow the advice PhilKnight offers on his user page: "I encourage other admins to be bold in reverting my admin actions" and unblock me. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 18:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I concur with the admins above.

[majestic titan] 08:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Nakon: Can you tell me the status of my unblock appeal? —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 15:37, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Nakon: I'm disappointed that after what appeared to be sincere investigation you handed my case to Salvidrim!, part of the same group of editors who blocked then reviewed my block - and blocked this guy then reviewed his blocks. Genuinely disappointed, but I won't bother you again. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Please indulge me one final question as I believe there was some ambiguity in my presentation of evidence.

To review: NBSB commented on the request for clarification regarding campus rape and Gamergate discretionary sanctions. At the time of his comment, four arbitrators had responded, all four indicating campus rape fell within the scope of DS:

• "I think the topic of campus rape quite clearly falls inside the scope of the DS authorization." -Courcelles
• "Campus rape" is covered by the Gamergate DS and people topic-banned under those DS should edit elsewhere" -Euryalus
• "What Euryalus said" -Salvio
• "I'm puzzled about why we even have to discuss this." -Thryduulf

Noting this, NBSB encouraged the arbitrators to acknowledge they had a "made a mistake" with respect to the scope of DS.

Almost a day after these comments, NBSB made four edits I submitted in evidence, by which time four additional arbitrators had commented on the clarification request:

• "Yes, what he said" -Dougweller (re: Salvio)
• "Campus rape is a gender related issue in terms of prevalence, and is also a controversial subject, so it is covered by the topic ban." -Seraphimblade
• "I also agree with the above" -DGG
• "Campus rape, as a topic, is both related to gender and the subject of controversy. I have to admit, I struggle to even understand how someone could argue otherwise. " -Yunshui

Diffs of NBSBs edits submitted in evidence:

1. 3/12/15 Regarding accusations of campus rape
2. 3/12/15 The policing of women's sexuality and feminism
3. 3/12/15 Regarding accusations of campus rape
4. 3/12/15 Regarding conflict between "conservative white men" and "feminists" (note removed text)

Two of these diffs (#2 and #4, concerning feminism) are so clearly covered by the DS the question wasn't even raised. The remaining two, concerning campus rape, had been asked and answered in the affirmative by eight of eight arbitrators before the first edit.

In your close you characterize NBSB's actions as "a good-faith misunderstanding." I ask: given the specificity of the question, the unambiguous responses, his acknowledgement of those responses and the unanimous agreement of the commenting arbitrators, where do you see the bases for NBSB's good-faith misunderstanding? —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reading your talk page arguments, Bob, I do not think it is likely you will get your block lifted. You are still arguing about NBSB's case and the validity and support for your point of view on BLP which is not at all what the block was about. I recommend reading and following Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks which offers some sound advice about the kind of response that reviewing admins are looking for.

I think you are mistaken that this block has anything to do with your understanding of policy or your POV. It's the fact that a relatively new account, which dives into policy and noticeboard disputes, rather than working on content and articles, raises suspicions. Normally, these issues about governance, guidelines and imposing disciplinary measures are NOT places where new editors ordinarily try to make their mark, in fact, it is often the last place where contributing editors want to spend their time. I'm not saying that you can't make a contribution in these areas but for a new account to file a request for enforcement at AE, well, it is an enormous red flag which will cause editors and admins alike to wonder who you are. This editing behavior, for an edit count with ~200 edits and only 12 of them to articles, was an invitation to be scrutinized.

I think it would help a lot if you indicated other areas of the project you would like to work on besides these administrative fields. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: It's difficult to determine what this block was about. The various messages from the blocking administrator suggest many reasons: this is an "alternate account" , I've "promote[d] a point of view", I've "pursue[d] wiki-litigation" and I've "probably also violate[d] relevant topic-area sanctions." I thought it best to summarize my contributions since I began and let the reviewing administrator judge what's relevant or sanctionable.

I'll glady address your specific points however:

1. Regarding the AE filing: as an editor and reader of several months I suggest it would be more surprising if I weren't familiar with AE requests. I followed the case when it was still in arbitration and I've read every related AE filing since then. I don't see why that should be an enormous flag. I think many active editors underestimate the number of readers who follow the goings on here without ever editing or registering.
2. Regarding that my first posts concerned policy: As I said I'd followed the case for some time. And while reasoned debate on the talk pages seems like the logical choice (and you've made some valid contributions there) I saw posts from new editors consistently ignored. I also saw the redaction of sources and the hesitancy to post sources, for fear of sanction, as a large obstacle to reasoned debate. Attempting to resolve that is how I felt I could best contribute.
3. Regarding other areas of interest: I'm still deciding whether to contribute at all, outside this space. I've seen policy and procedure navigated or ignored to make this particular article inaccurate. No system is perfect and inaccuracy in the short term is forgivable, but if that inaccuracy persists in the long term, which I'm waiting to see, I can't support this project in good conscience. Gamergate is not significant; confirmation that wikipedia has a resilient process that results in accurate articles is critical. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore the concern trolling

WP:ASPERSIONS

on editors with whom she doesn't agree with on matters. Let's face it: there are plenty of longstanding dynamic IP editors and previous IP editors deciding to create an account who had extensive knowledge of Wikipedia beforehand. The fact that new wiki accounts know wiki policy alone shouldn't be a bannable offense; if anything, it ought to be encouraged for new accounts to actually know the rules and features of this site.

The block against you seems inappropriate to me since the admins agreed that your case was technically correct so nobody can say that you were simply stirring up pointless debate and trouble, and therefore if any block should have been made it should have happened after the case was done being evaluated. 72.92.42.4 (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You make some valid points, EBob. But there is a bit of a contradiction between saying you can't support this project and yet continuing to try to get your block lifted or changed to a block of a finite period of time. While your faith might be shaken, I think you still want to make a contribution here and I wish you luck.

I'd reply to you, 72.92.42.4, if you had chosen to log into your regular account instead of a throw-away IP account. That automatically makes your drive-by remarks carry less weight since you won't even associate your words with your own account. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I never said I can't support the project. I said if policy and procedure can't correct inaccuracies in the long term then I can't support the project. I'm waiting to see if they can and I'm doing what I can by policy, including appealing my block, to facilitate that. I don't see a contradiction there.

But I don't see what relevance this has to my appeal - I assume the charge of sockpuppetry is based on existing edits. —EncyclopediaBob (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:ASPERSIONS on editors with whom you disagree with on matters. If you actually feel that I socking and this really isn't about continuing your penchant for aspersions and passive-aggression, by all means prove it and open up a case against me. As previously mentioned, most Wikipedia contributors don't have accounts, and so you should remember that users like you with accounts are actually a minority here. If you feel that even primary-source citations are somehow "less true" simply because they are used by someone without an account, you either have a lot of deleting to do in this encyclopedia, or you simply aren't a good fit for this project. 72.92.42.4 (talk) 18:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply

]