User talk:DHeyward/Archive 19

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.

Archive 15

←

Archive 17

→

Topic ban

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

Everyone needs to chill about all this. @Gamaliel:, maybe just let this go.--MONGO 00:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I don't really need the hassle. Gamaliel (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Or just email me? Bernstein canvasses for support off-wiki via Twitter etc and if this particular situation crosses over some on-wiki line then I'm quite happy to deal with it by other means. It is no secret that I have been compiling an ArbCom case. - Sitush (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

For Gamaliel to enforce this topic ban against DHeyward after twice declining to enforce it against MarkBernstein would be nothing short of absurd. Which means, given my experience with Gamaliel and MarkBernstein, we can probably expect it to happen any moment now. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

While I don't recall what alleged instances you are referring to, I have declined to enforce lots of possible sanctions against lots of people. There is a long list of instances where DHeyward has escaped sanctions, for example. But there aren't internet boards full of people coming to Wikipedia to complain that he hasn't been blocked yet. Gamaliel (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a 3-way IBAN. Considering it was brought up on the AE request by Liz a while ago, it would be stale to act on it now since it closed. Second, you are the admin that imposed it. Appealing to uninvolved admins and especially the imposing admin is one of my only recourse to provide information. Leaving that information on your talk page, rather than AE is in the exact nature and spirit of what you said the Interaction Ban included. If you don't want to place it on the AE page, that's your discretion. As Starke Hathaway noted, I asked you to drop IBAN or enforce it numerous times and each time you whittled it away in its scope to where I only understand it to prevent me from bringing new actions. Had you not closed it so quickly, my recourse is to ask you to put on the AE request which would have been the same thing as what I did. I would find it rather odd to complain about your talk page when it wasn't on article space or noticeboard space which is where you complained about it being disruptive, but your talk page where it is permitted. When implementing it, you seemed to think invoking the Interaction Ban so that Orlando Thargor and I could not bring AE action against MB, it would end MB's appearances at the noticeboards. That did not happen. It would be rather punitive to somehow enforce this as an IBAN violation when the only reason is another close of another MB appearance at another admin board. --DHeyward (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The intent of the topic ban was to get all three of you to stop complaining about one another. And yet, here you are complaining about him. I've looked at the log and the sanction has not been officially modified in any way, so it is still in force. I'm sure Sitush or MONGO would be glad to post any list of diffs you feel you need to post to AE. WP:DROPTHESTICK, now. Consider this an official reminder, which I am logging. Gamaliel (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh no...MONGO definitely not interested in anything with the word arbitration in it...I can always go see my ex mother-in-law if I want some agony in my life.--MONGO 03:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Orlando and I never complained about or discussed each other. MB filed back-to-back AE requests because we commented on him at ARBCA (Against Thargor against DHeyward. Your solution was the IBAN believing that it would reduce the drama at AE. This all played out when he was topic-banned and that was all unwound when Dreadstar went supernova. After that I requested it be dropped or enforced. Multiple times regarding both comments on talk page, reverts and comments on admin noticeboards. Each time, you declined to remove the topic ban and explained the "intent" didn't include all those things. Asking anyone else to post my material would be canvassing. The only avenue is providing material to uninvolved admins as it is explicitly stated as allowed. I emailed the material to all commenting admins prior, except you, frankly due to perceived hostility to me. They didn't acknowledge receipt prior to your close, save for one that said they weren't able to review immediately. However, I will take your reminder to heart as I understand the concern you have articulated and what you believe I did wrong and I will take a few days to consider my options. I would hope you would also seriously consider the advice you gave Masem regarding the GGC article and consider it for your own AE enforcement participation where MB is concerned. It is good advice and you have been involved in GGC enforcement for over a year which I am sure is taking its toll. Enforcing admins have come and gone and perhaps a clean slate is not a bad idea. --DHeyward (talk) 04:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I have been trying to become less involved. At AE, for the last several GG requests I've merely commented instead of imposing sanctions or taking actions, which is why that ridiculous drama fest that was the last request went on for five days instead of two. This makes it frustrating when people bring long complaints to my talk page demanding I take action while simultaneously complaining about my involvement. Gamaliel (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

But you put your comments in the uninvolved administrators section. This puts doubt on whether your intentions to become less involved are sincere. If you must make comments on AE, I would do what Liz did. Also, hatting the discussion counts as taking an action to me. 97.125.135.34 (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is denying that was an action. Were I attempting to be more active, it is an action I would have taken days earlier. Gamaliel (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

If you were attempting to be less active, then you would have waited until either another admin closed it; Or until most of the arguments made in AE were addressed. Yes, it is a dramafest, but it isn't senseless, mindless banter. 97.125.135.34 (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps there were some sensible arguments buried in the drama somewhere. Next time we need to do a better job of policing the statements so they can't be manipulated by outside interests for the lulz. Gamaliel (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Gamaliel, if it is your sincere belief that discussing the AE request against MarkBernstein is a violation of a sanction you imposed on DHeyward, why are you continuing to discuss it with third parties on DHeyward's talk page? Surely this discussion would be more apropos on your own talk page, no? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right. Anyone who wishes to discuss this should take this elsewhere. DHeyward can archive or delete this as he sees fit. Gamaliel (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record

I know we disagree on a great many things, but I believed you to be a reasonable and principled person. It would appear I was wrong about that. Pity. Dumuzid (talk) 03:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Dumuzid I'm not sure what prompted that comment but I am a reasonable and principled person. A little more detail would be appreciated..--DHeyward (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban

I have removed your statement at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard as a violation of your topic ban. Perhaps you are frustrated about what happened to Masem off-site, but the violator was not Mark Bernstein and the violator has already been blocked. Gamaliel (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel:...don't you mean interaction ban? Unless I'm mistaken, he violated your interaction ban....DHeyward is not topic banned too is he?--MONGO 18:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Topic banned from the topic of Mark Bernstein. I didn't make it an interaction ban so they could discuss edits if necessary. Gamaliel (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification...due to my denseness, I am oftentimes in need of clarification.--MONGO 17:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

not the place for this

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Uncalled for and violation of BLP

This [1] was nasty and uncalled for. Partially refactored. - Cwobeel (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

No, it wasn't. McVeigh could have bought diesel fuel and ammonium nitrate all day long and mixed them in barrels. It became notable when he blew something up. Farmers use that combination all the time on tree stumps, but again not notable. The fear was that this clock meant more than just a clock and until it is more than a clock, it's not notable. It's another kid that made a mistake by chewing a pop tart into a gun or writing a story about shooting dinosaurs. He got suspended for 3 days like many high schoolers do when they incite fear. I'd rather not immortalize this incident. The race and/or religious element is being way overblown and any kid that did this in a school would have been subjected to the same thing. Please remember that "zero tolerance" is the problem and kids that bring in a steak knife to cut steak get suspended. It's not worthy of an article though unless it becomes a mass shooting/stabbing/bombing. Clocks aren't notable, bombs are. --DHeyward (talk)

It is still uncalled for. The subject is a 14-year old and a living person, and to imply as you said that if he uses his clock to blow something up, we can add it later was a nasty comment given the circumstances. If you made that implication without thinking of how it will be perceived, then say it. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

What circumstances? That high school kids do stupid stuff and everything is perceived as a threat and there is zero tolerance? Keep in mind that kids are shot and killed for toy guns. Many more are detained at school for toy guns and given suspensions. Unless they shoot up the school, we don't give them articles. Why did you perceive it as 'nasty'? --DHeyward (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I'll assume good faith, but your tone deafness is surprising. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:11, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Odd clock in a suitcase...looks like a red flag to me...coupled with the fact that Moslems commit most of the terrorism today not sure I can blame some for being suspicious. How it was handled by the authorities though is indeed appaling, and IMO should lead to at least one termination.--MONGO 17:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Pencil case actually. The image floating around doesn't really convey the scale well (8.25in x 5.5in x 2.5in) according to Amazon. Was handled appalling poorly though. — Strongjam (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Good picture. Notice the boards are machine printed; the display and transformer are obviously prefabricated, even the battery backup was left in place. The picture suggests this student did nothing more than disassemble an alarm clock and mount its pieces inside a new case, requiring only basic soldering skills. And the choice of a metal case! with no grounding plug presents serious risk of injury. Thoroughly unimpressive effort even for a teenager. Has any of this been noted in RS? 161.202.72.185 (talk) 17:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Those components can be had from Radio Shack or similar supplier so not sure he actually took a clock radio apart. The question is, was it bring your homemade science project to school day or what?--MONGO 17:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Only the transformer is common, the other parts are specific to a single alarm clock which would come pre-wired to the transformer. Upon closer examination not even soldering was involved as the power cable is sandwiched between the sides of the case. Abrade that wire sufficiently and you'll have a nice electrical fire. This student's done nothing beyond destroying a plastic alarm clock case and throwing its parts haphazardly inside a less suitable case. This raises further questions as to motivation. 161.202.72.185 (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Looking again it appears the outer insulation was thick enough to prevent the case from closing so the student stripped it away! This "project" would be laughed off any electronics forum. Amazing. 161.202.72.185 (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Uh-mazing

Regarding the Ahmed Mohamed arrest/detainment discussion: While I can be pretty rigid at times about policy, I will never understand editors who stick with "We go by what reliable sources say!" even in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary. Yes, we go by what reliable sources say because they are reliable which is synonymous with "Never Wrong!". Gawd. You would think that with Texas law quoted and linked in conjunction with the released police report that proves an arrest never could have occurred, Common sense would take over, but you've got those who will never bend on this one. I maintain it's due in large part to a severe case of POV. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: I agree with you that we need to get it right and we have reliable sources. The law and the press release are primary sources, but the Texas AG's guidebook that interprets the law is a definitive secondary source. When I first saw your argument, I was applying the state I am familiar with but it made me look it up. I am asking a few TX LEO's if they make the distinction (they obviously have a different process for juveniles and the press release is spot on with wording taken exactly from the AG guidebook). People get hung up on handcuffs but that's most likely a standard procedure and order for any custodial transport, not just arrests. Someone being taken to a mental health hospital for involuntary committal will be handcuffed behind their back and it's not an arrest. Police are taught from day one to watch hands and control hands because hands can kill. --DHeyward (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Something I linked to yesterday addressed the use of handcuffs in a detainment situation with a juvenile. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's what I think will happen: it will come out, as the Mohamed case develops with CAIR's involvement, that he wasn't arrested but detained. This article is the beginning of that road. Eventually, it will be clear that he wasn't arrested -- even if the POV pushers and warriors refuse to see/admit it now, that's exactly what happened. We've done pretty much everything we can to prove that isn't what happened, but detainment/investigative hold doesn't fit the agenda of editors who are busy pushing their version of the story and arrest does. I think if we are patient, the truth on this will come out soon - unfortunately, in the meantime, we will have an article that gives the wrong story because of editors who are using policy like robots because the truth is doesn't fit their desired narrative. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi:I verified with some Texas police that we are correct. Their software (the ones I talked to) that they use for writing reports. For disposition, the software doesn't allow "arrest" for juveniles as a choice. It can only be "detained," which is brief, or "taken in custody." The report will never say "arrested" for juveniles. Offenders that are adults have "arrested" as an option. Juveniles don't face penalties for the crime, per se, but rather the only finding is delinquency and the court looks for appropriate responses for delinquency. So even if juvenile justice chose to pursue it, it would be a delinquency hearing, not a "hoax bomb" criminal charge. --DHeyward (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I figured it would come out that way. Good on you for verifying it. But, is that "reliable" enough for those with an agenda for their discrimination narrative? I doubt it. After all, "reliable sources" are never wrong! And, it doesn't matter how many other reliable sources are saying "detained", enough sources say "arrested" to suit their purposes, sadly, and that's enough for them to hijack the article (at this time, anyway). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Disputed free use rationale

Please do not delete the {{dfu}} template until the rationale is assessed. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I assessed it and removed it after correcting all deficiencies. --DHeyward (talk) 23:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

By Texas statute: "Section 552.002(c) specifies that “[t]he general forms 41 in which the media containing public information exist include a book, paper, letter, document, e-mail, Internet posting, text message, instant message, other electronic communication, printout, photograph, film, tape, microfiche, microfilm, photostat, sound recording, map, and drawing and a voice, data, or video representation held in computer memory." (web site of Texas Attorney General)

The photograph exceptions given are only: "Sensitive crime scene image” means a photograph or video recording taken at a crime scene, contained in or part of a closed criminal case, that depicts a deceased person in a state of dismemberment, decapitation, or similar mutilation or that depicts the deceased person’s genitalia."

"A photograph that depicts a peace officer as defined by Article 2.12, Code of Criminal Procedure, the release of which would endanger the life or physical safety of the officer, is excepted from the requirements of Section 552.021 unless:

(1) the officer is under indictment or charged with an offense by information;

(2) the officer is a party in a civil service hearing or a case in arbitration; or

(3) the photograph is introduced as evidence in a judicial proceeding.

(b) A photograph excepted from disclosure under Subsection (a) may be made public only if the peace officer gives written consent to the disclosure."

"An employee of a governmental body who is also a victim under Subchapter B, Chapter 56, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the employee has filed an application for compensation under that subchapter, may elect whether to allow public access to information held by the attorney general’s office or other governmental body that would identify or tend to identify the victim, including a photograph or other visual representation of the victim. An election under this subsection must be made in writing on a form developed by the governmental body, be signed by the employee, and be filed with the governmental body before the third anniversary of the latest to occur of one of the following:

(1) the date the crime was committed;

(2) the date employment begins; or

(3) the date the governmental body develops the form and provides it to employees."

Also photographs of "minors" participating in recreational activities or programs are exempt.

AFAICT, the image is a "public record" under pretty clear Texas law (it was furnished with other documents by an agency subject to Texas law). The photograph was released to the public by an agency subject to Texas law, and can not be "copyright" by that agency, but would only be able, in fact, to be withheld under the stated limited circumstances. As it is not a photograph of any person or dead body or body parts, that pretty much kills all the reasons for asserting it can not be used under Texas law. Collect (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Please join the discussion instead of just reverting. The is the way we solve content disputes in Wikipedia. There is a growing list of sources calling these conspiracy theories, and using SYNTH calling these "Contrarian views" or describing them as "alternative narratives" to try to soften the fact that these are indeed nutty and fringe, is nuts (no pun intended) - Cwobeel (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Reported to Arbitration Enforcement

Please see WP:AE for a report of your recent WP:BLP violations.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Hurricane Joaquin title

Noticed that you moved Hurricane Joaquin to Hurricane Joaquin (2015) on the basis of it not being retired and to clarify the season. This is a bit of an outdated practice of WP:WPTC that goes against WP:TITLE. In particular, WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME lend to the "(2015)" not being a part of the title as this is the only iteration of "Joaquin" as a hurricane (and its first usage for a tropical cyclone name globally). The moving of articles without a year because of retirement is in-line with WP:COMMONNAME, as it's assumed the retired name inherits the greatest notability. The six-year gap between name usage doesn't really warrant having the year in the title and we can simply move the article when the time comes. Essentially, the "(2015)" is an unnecessary modifier that can be excluded from the title. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 06:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Cyclonebiskit No worries. I simply presumed that a weak hurricane would be reused and in 6 years we shouldn't need to ddeal with it. Note that Hurricane Joaquin redirects to the 2015 version so that name reuse won't be an issue in 2021. Disambiguing now sets a naming standard and also prevents broken links later. Hurricane Joaquin should be the most notable and fixing now prevents errors later. --DHeyward (talk) 06:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Ahmed Mohamed Clock by Irving PD.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ahmed Mohamed Clock by Irving PD.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Details about weapons used in crimes and mass killings

Hey. I just noticed this discussion you started:

Expand BLP policy around coverage of mass shootings?

Fascinating! It is tangentially related to a discussion here:

Providing a weapons list without excessive detail (noise)

This got me thinking about effecting a policy change regarding how we deal with the nitty gritty details about weapons used in crimes and mass killings. I wrote:

The number and general type (handgun, single action or semi-auto, rifle, shotgun) are relevant, but the exact model isn't always significant, and just serves to glorify the brand, which only feeds the perverse curiosity of copycat killers, ammophiliacs, and ammosexuals.

Since this subject will repeatedly come up in the future, and already applies to a number of articles, I would like to see a policy about how to deal with the level of detail for weapons used in mass killings. We must cover the subject, but it is undue weight to wallow in the nitty gritty details of the exact brand and model. The references can serve that purpose. Wikipedia should seek to de-emphasize such detail, as an act of solidarity with the cause of anti-violence. We shouldn't even begin to do anything which benefits violence.

What do you think? Is there any merit in this? How can we do this? Where would be the best place to start an RfC (or whatever) to make this a policy? -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

If it's a "shooting" then the thing that was shot is relevant. It's not a matter of weight, since only a few words or characters are involved. If the exact models of guns are unimportant than why does WP have so many articles on guns? 2602:306:C5B4:E3D0:3C44:E8A5:26B1:DBC8 (talk) 07:22, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

That's two different subjects. An article about a gun should go into great detail. -- BullRangifer (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree in general. There's nothing inherently lethal or useful about a particular model. caliber is important. action is important but "semi-automatic pistol" is generally the same thing regardless of brand. We'd also have to avoid poliyical terms like "assault rifle." The village pump is where I started a discussion. --DHeyward (talk) 16:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Revisiting MOS:IDENTITY on transgender individuals in articles about themselves and in passing in other articles

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For your great input at UCC shooting/talk. ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 02:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

− Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Samsara 19:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the beer getting deleted - that was not intentional. Samsara 19:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Gone

I'm leaving the Clock Boy incident article. In short, I'm doing so because I'm sick of contributing good edits that just get reverted or obliterated; I'm sick of the snide edit summaries left after those competing edits are made. I'm sick of the article ownership. I left my final word there at the talk page here. You, I've enjoyed editing with. The other regulars, not at all. See you elsewhere, I'm sure. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Policy on living persons at Talk:Cecil (lion)

I've posted about an issue here in which you are involved. Samsara 15:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence

Hi DHeyward,

Your section on the evidence page has been moved to the evidence talk page as it does not meet the requirements for inclusion as evidence. This has been undertaken as a clerk action and should not be reverted.

For the Arbitration Comittee. Amortias (T)(C) 12:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Depression Quest

Please stop edit warring at Depression Quest. As the one introducing challenged material, the burden of evidence is on you to defend it on the talk page.--Cúchullain ^t/c 04:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your arbitration enforcement restriction, which prohibits you "from all edits and discussion regarding User:MarkBernstein", you have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Well...admins who block and then disappear don't have to be accountable for their actions...and when other assholes hat off inquiring efforts as to the issues then we know were living in a totalitarian shithole which would make Stalin proud. I'm about done here. The arbcom committee lies and makes up cases and when you inform them you defended then against sexual harassment, they are so self absorbed they don't even notice. SPAs waste enormous time and energy and nothing can be done about then unless they make a death threat. I make like zero bucks yet have invested thousands of my own dollars to keep this website profitable...the crassness and rudeness is intolerable. Few editors out there can write worth a shit...no research skills...no writing skills...even their arguments are insane. Fuck it....I'm taking a break.--MONGO 00:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@NE Ent: I did appeal. Directly to Gamaliel when he took AE action by deleting the post and saying he would not block as long as I didn't repost it. I didn't repost it. That's in Email at his request to keep drama down. I sent HJ Mitchell an email describing Gamaliel's "No AE Action" deletion as he blocked 2 hours after Gamaliel's delete with "no action" on AE enforcement. That he let you close the ANI as out of process is rather sad. He asked that it not create drama so I didn't do anything that would bring attention here. I also emailed ArbCom. Please reopen it until it's resolved. I removed the formal unblock request because of "drama" but it's apparent that drama is what the admins want instead of just unblocking. Mitchell and Gamaliel are both involved admins anyway with Mitchell's previous block being overturned at AN and my history with Gamaliel is 10 years old and he is so involved that he's banned me from his talk page. The same show up, block, non-respond is the pattern we see. Let's not forget the tweet that it is I that am being driven to a low profile, been lied about and attempted doxing. I only point out the pot was calling the kettle black and only a very few would understand the reference to the tweet (i.e. followers of MarkBernstein). This is a serious abuse of admin tools and it's gone on long enough. --DHeyward (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

to be clear, Mitchell is unaware that his block is out of process. He is not aware that Gamaliel deleted the edit, emailed me about his "No Action" regarding AE enforcement (I have the email). Mitchell effectively undid Gamaliel's AE admin action by blocking. Identical to AE 1 and contrary to its final decision about process. --DHeyward (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

{{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. HJ Mitchell was unaware that Gamaliel deleted and then emailed me regarding his "No AE Action" if I didn't repost the deleted material. That is an AE action according the AE 1. Gamaliel had already dealt with it, removed the material snd made a warning that closed the issue. Two hours later, Mitchell issues a block with no indication of how he was made aware of deleted posts, no discussions, no warnings or communication. Mitchell has already had a block overturned and has not responded to email requests for explanation. The deleted material should be viewed by admins that can see deleted material for a violation. Unless admins follow a certain twitter user, the tweet in question and its author are not identifiable. Furthermore, it's not false as the tweet made false accusations, was intimidating as a doxing threat and designed to "lower my profile." [[User:DHeyward|DHeyward]] ([[User talk:DHeyward#top|talk]]) 01:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Also note that the mens rea consciousness of guilt seems to have moved certain parties to delete the offensive tweets. Sunlight is a good disinfectant. --DHeyward (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC) }}

@HighInBC: Gamaliel had already addressed it as an AE case and said "No action" if I didn't repost the material in an email two hours before Mitchell took action. That's a clear AE action that Mitchell undid. How Mitchell, who has already had a block of mine overturned at AE became aware of deleted edits, related them to a noticeboard ban regarding another editor and took action without reviewing that it had already been dealt with by the admin that imposed the topic ban deserves scrutiny. Why me, why then, why a deleted edit, and why after the sanction implmenting admin declined action deserves scrutiny. AE 1 ArbCom case clearly states that admin closures with no admin action are AE actions. Mitchell undid this and acted out of process by blocking after the original admin dealt with it. It's an out of process block and Mitchell is once again absent to address this, just as he was absent in his first block which was overturned at AN. I don't care to know why he unblocked MarkBernstein out of process by undoing Kww's block or why he hsa found it necessary to block me with specious reasons for hte second time. He just needs a new hobby. Also, someone needs to review the reasoning for deleting my edits under BLP grounds. Nothing I said was false nor was a living person identifiable unless they were twitter fans of that person (which makes them involved but still not a BLP violation as they know the tweets occurred.). --DHeyward (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe you DHeyward, but the corruption of the admin corps is so deep and extensive that there is almost nothing to be done. Look no farther than the current discussion at ANI where the worst admins on Wikipedia are protecting their fellow corrupt admins, doing everything in their power to keep corrupt admins from being blocked. It's been this way for a while now. I hope you'll join me and others in removing this continued threat by promoting the complete and total dissolution of the RFA process followed by the distributed debundling of the toolset, concluding with mass desysopping on par with the French Revolution. You and I know that the majority of hat collectors, power mongers, and bureaucracy lovers are here only to promote their own interests, and actively use Wikipedia to fluff up their personal resumes and retain jobs they aren't the least qualified to hold. Let's at least be honest about what we are up against: the blindingly mediocre, the weak of heart and mind, and the spineless, asslicking, unquestioning and obedient, cranial rectal inverted policy pimps of the Internet. Viriditas (talk) 04:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Meh...do people really brag about being Wikipedians on their resumes or LinkedIn? Even if I was known as Mr. Sweetness and all my articles were about butterflies and dessert recipes and I never disagreed with anyone...I still wouldn't think being a wikipedian would help me with my career.--MONGO 07:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: I believe you've already declared being involved in GamerGate topic and my block is a GamerGate sanction. Please clarify that you are commenting as an involved admin at AN. --DHeyward (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Its my opinion that HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) should step away from administrating this website. The restrictions between yourself and MB are apparently unilateral, so to me that means all interaction and requests for arbcom sanctions which should, if it doesn't, include email requests for action. I assume Gamaliel posted those bans to referee the two of you from battleground interactions. When an administrator responds with a block based on a complaint from either party via any channel (my version since I would hope that not being able to do so onsite would also mean that doing so via email would also be verboten) then there should be a question mark for us all as to how far trust should be when we have such things as discretionary sanctions.--MONGO 20:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Writing this here because there's been perhaps a bit too much off-wiki discussion about this and related situations. You sailed awfully close to the line here, DHeyward. I do really urge you to consider stepping away from the GamerGate topic entirely, because it's not doing you much good, and I am concerned that spending so much time in this topic area is having a negative effect on you. It's not been obvious because I don't make any edits in the topic area, but I have been watching GG from afar - and I can support almost all of the decisions made by HJ Mitchell and Gamaliel; in fact, I might have been even more restrictive in some cases. And do bear in mind that any admin AE-related "decision" that's not publicly viewable on the AE noticeboard doesn't prevent another admin from making a different decision. Technically speaking, if it isn't posted in somewhere that another admin can refer to, they're not really overturning anything or changing the outcome. Risker (talk) 04:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

JSTOR cleanup drive

Hello TWL users! We hope JSTOR has been a useful resource for your work. We're organizing a cleanup drive to correct dead links to JSTOR articles – these require JSTOR access and cannot easily be corrected by bot. We'd love for you to jump in and help out!

See the list

Sent of behalf of Nikkimaria for The Wikipedia Library's JSTOR using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:18, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Map at 2015 Colorado Springs shooting

Hi, in this edit it looks like you intended to copy the coordinates from the coord template, but typed 104.8499 instead of 104.8489. The difference is only about 85 meters, insignificant at the scale of that map, but it's probably worth correcting anyway. Otherwise someone might "correct" the coord template instead, which would be quite significant if zoomed in with one of the interactive map facilities. I'd do it myself but the article is semi-protected. 72.198.26.61 (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you log into your account so that you can do that. You should be careful that your IP editing is done in areas where you haven't been with your account. Editing Wiki Project space with both account AND IP may be indeed taken as socking. I think you may have misunderstood how legit IP editing occurs. To be on the safe side, you should use your account.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)