User talk:DHeyward/Archive 20

As of
You are definitively wrong about this ]. That is why we have the asof for, in particular for current events in which information changes and you want to preserve the event chronology as it evolves over time. You undoing my edits and following me around, is getting stupid, btw. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

General sanctions violation
You have violated the General Sanctions of WP:1RR at 2015 San Bernardino attack‎, per WP:GS/ISIL. As a courtesy, I invite you to self-revert and engage in discussion at talk.


 * revert 1


 * revert 2

-  Cwobeel   (talk)  20:55, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


 * False, you fail to combine the consecutive edits. Secondly, I'm not even aware that the first edit was a revert since it doesn't show an equivalent previous version. --DHeyward (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Look at the history. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:14, 17 December 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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -  Cwobeel   (talk)  21:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * How many places are you shopping this to? --DHeyward (talk) 21:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

GS/ISIL
See here, and the header of Talk:2015 San Bernardino attack‎. BMK (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Wishing you
Cwobeel  (talk)  23:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)|}

Happy Yuletide
Happy Yuletide! 

Merry Yuletide to you! (And a happy new year!)

Rhoark (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed
''You are receiving this message because you are a party or offered a preliminary statement and/or evidence in the Arbitration enforcement 2 case. This is a one-time message.''

The has been closed, and the following remedies have been enacted:

1.1) The Arbitration Committee confirms the sanctions imposed on Eric Corbett as a result of the Interactions at GGTF case, but mandates that all enforcement requests relating to them be filed at arbitration enforcement and be kept open for at least 24 hours.

3) For his breaches of the standards of conduct expected of editors and administrators, Black Kite is admonished.

6) The community is reminded that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for any page relating to or any edit about: (i) the Gender Gap Task Force; (ii) the gender disparity among Wikipedians; and (iii) any process or discussion relating to these topics, all broadly construed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07  ( T ) 02:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard


 * May our mouth be full of laughter, a comment from a psalm, with music 290 years old today, Forget arbcom (I didn't keep that on my talk), and celebrate Christmas! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, DHeyward!


Happy New Year! DHeyward, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. North America1000 07:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Please pardon inadvertent misclick
Darn "smart" phone. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:06, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
 * LOL. I was reading the revert thinking I was about to get a NLT warning over misunderstanding.  I'm actually glad your reading and the misclick is even appreciated for that alone.  --DHeyward (talk) 03:11, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! ParkH.Davis (talk) 15:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks re: Jimbo talk page
Thanks for helping me understand better what the organizational relationships and responsibilities are here. Nocturnalnow (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Gamergate page
I'm not going to edit war with you over this. Your citation doesn't support your claim, it just says that she said she should be fired over the views in the essay. Please revert or reword to be inline with WP:BLP policy. You're an experienced editor, you know the drill around here. — Strongjam (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You can take it to the talk page. I addressed your comment that Jamie Walton wasn't associated with the Wayne Foundation with a source with the following: Later, Jamie Walton of the Wayne Foundation, an anti-sex trafficking campaigner, tweeted that Rapp should be fired as a result of the views expressed in her essay.  You chose a sexualised term "stripped" which is unnecessary and misogynist since removed is a much more neutral term (really you think "stripped" is better considering "strippers" and "to strip" are terms that are being used for the same person?  Come on).  We all know that moonlighting cannot conflict with the interest of the primary company (including things like "image") .  I've worked high tech a long time and no one prohibits moonlighting as long as it doesn't "conflict."  Every company requires disclosure of that second job and the supervisor, HR and legal determine if there is a conflict, not the employee.  I didn't explicitly state this, only that she had a job that she kept hidden.  However you want to describe "hidden" is fine as long as it doesn't imply wrongdoing by Nintendo or her.  Nintendo says it was a conflict, she disagrees.  That's all that can be said.  I'm not sure what other issues you have but the article talk page is better.  --DHeyward (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Mentioned your actions on AN/I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Blatant_BLP_violation_and_subsequent_protection_by_involved_Admin

Arkon (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

FYI
I am uninvolved. I am not even American! I closed the report because it's frivolous. One user is in danger of climbing the Reichstag because not everybody (read: noboduy else) agrees that the mere existence of a joke article constitutes a sky-is-falling slam-dunk BLP violation that requires us to ban the perpetrators and desysop everyone who has failed to delete it. It is lame. MfD is sorting it out, and the debate is doing nothing other than allowing the OP to endanger his editing privileges. Guy (Help!) 13:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't bring it to ANI. The recent closure with the flip edit summary and consequent reversal made you involved.  Your first closure and the discussion that followed is now part of it.  Who cares if a pointless ANI is left open?  let it die on the vine and get archived rather than take the mickey out of him.  --DHeyward (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In your view. I disagree. That interpretation would forbid any admin from opining on any subject more than once, after all. No matter, all sorted now by MfD, and that was all it ever needed. Guy (Help!) 17:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Perhaps closing discussions with inaccurate snarky, blp violating summaries is frowned upon? Strange that.  Arkon (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Not all. Opining is fine.  When the opining becomes a topic for discussion in that same thread, though, there is at least a concern for a second closure by the editor being discussed.  The MfD cleared up who was correct about policy but the behavior, including a recent userspace creation, is problematic.  Edit warring to keep a blp violation, for example, is a behavioral issue that is validated by the snow delete.  But I agree that the probability that a sitting arb is sanctioned is slim to none.  I don't care if it's kept open or closed, but any actions should be done by an editor that is not being discussed.  --DHeyward (talk) 17:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Meh. "Wikipediaz: Srs bizniss" is fine, but the OP was being a tit. Anyway, all fixed now. Guy (Help!) 18:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology arbitration case opened
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 Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 22, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The message was sent using the case's MassMessage list. Unless you are a party, you may remove your name from the list to stop receiving notifications regarding the case.

A Revert
I'm sure you didn't intend for it to read so, but your edit summary reads kind of threat-like, in that whole "nice store, shame if something happened to it" kind of way. "Lets see who really wants to exploit her and disclose her views on sexuality." seems to imply that we'll be talking about other people's morality and history, gamergate-style, if anyone reverts. I'd be fine with you redoing the edits, I think, just with a better summary.--Jorm (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope not a threat at all. I don't think she belongs.  She's a young woman who made a mistake.  I'm not interested in maintaining her firing on WP.  Doesn't serve anyone but those scoring at home.  Just today I was accused of adding a quote that accused her of being a pedophile.  Utter nonsense.  I explained that Watson wasn't some gamergater looking to add boob sliders and is against child sex exploitation.  Even today, the edit that says it was a single student essay is complete BS.  Watson tagged the essay and these tweets.  It's all sourceable.  The part PtF opposed was someone elses addition of "pedophelia aplogist" and apparently preferred the more direct quote from Watson "pedophilia supporter."  I could care less as long as Watson, a legitimate anti-sex trafficking activist isn't being misrepresented as being upset over sliders or games.  The current distortion implying Watson naively based everything over a senior thesis and not the tweets is another slight against her that is easily solves with available sources saying "and subsequent tweets" along with the tweets themselves.  So really, the choice is to fix the BLP distortions made against Watson and descend further into Alison Rapp's history, a young women who wasn't fired for any of this, and immortalize these arguments; or remove her completely as someone who simply is a sideshow and deserves to live out her life without the 25 y/o type of mistakes she made.  She is obviously capable, bright and very young.  Lets not define her by GamerGate.  --DHeyward (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that mentioning her is probably not useful (which is why I said I'd be fine with redoing the edits). I just felt that the edit summary was a bit more aggressive and I wanted to avoid there being a situation of a "chilling effect".  I think you should make the edits again with a different summary is all.--Jorm (talk) 03:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I won't revert it. I'll discus on the talk page but I think there will be a resistance from scalp hunters that added her in the first place.  It certainly wasn't me and I'm not really keen on the "suppressing victims" narrative that would follow.  Let the anti-GGers that added her as a victim agree that this rabbit hole has no good ending.  Keeping it open means we will eventually learn her outside employment that was sent to Nintendo.   Anyone think that information will reflect positively?  Nintendo didn't and they didn't throw it out there when Rapp chose not to either.  --DHeyward (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Note about redaction
Just a note that I've removed part of your comment. Feel free to revert if you have a reliable source for such claims, but as it is imgur mirrors of images of tweets is not appropriate. — Strongjam (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The link summarizes the discussion. Kotaku article references them about the person arrest.   I purposely chose sources for illustration so we could discuss without just putting them in at this point.  The prediction is happening and I hope it moots the discussion and it's deleted. --DHeyward (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Unacceptable
DHeyward, this is so inappropriate that words fail me. Thank you,, for reverting. Drmies (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It was a removed userbox that was there a few months ago, prominent for years. Vandals must have removed it.  --DHeyward (talk) 16:35, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You could've just asked about it. He removed it himself almost a year ago. WP:WIKIBLAME is useful if you're trying to find out when something was removed. Here is an example query. — Strongjam (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool! Thanks for that. Sorry for the restoration. --DHeyward (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Personal attack at WP:RFAR
Hi DHeyward. I have removed a comment of yours as a clerk action from this request for arbitration. Editors participating in the process are required to conduct themselves with decorum, and describing someone as "a cancer" is unacceptable. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC).

Proposed arbitration temporary injunction
The Arbitration Committee is considering enacting the following temporary injunction with respect to the case request of 10 April 2016:

Temporary injunctions may be enacted 24 hours after achieving four net votes. Your comments are welcome at the arbitration case request. For the Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 04:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Gamaliel and others arbitration case opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by May 2, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Wpegden (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Edit on Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others
Hi DHeyward. I've reverted your edit at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others, as edits to that page are only to be made by arbitrators and arbitration clerks. You are advised that under the arbitration policy, as implemented by the clerks' procedures, clerks have the authority to issue sanctions; and you are warned that any further misconduct (including breaching rules of order or decorum, casting aspersions, or making personal attacks) will result in a ban from the case or a block. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 02:40, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * How can he be banned from the case? He's a named party.--MONGO 02:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The typical procedure is for comments to be sent by email to the Committee (in this case, arbcom-en-b@lists.wikimedia.org). Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 02:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Also, just FYI I've removed the comment you added after the case was opened; statements are welcome at the case talk page and in other places within the case. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 02:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Reminds me of that little cartoon I've seen...one asks where the complaint box is and is given a piece of paper the size of a postage stamp and the instructions take up two thirds of the stamp-sized page.--MONGO 03:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The "Rules of Order" were already violated when no one who accepted the case mention me or my comments and then just through me into the case. What exactly are the charge or conflict am I I responding to other than the broken rules? .  --DHeyward (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Neither of us are privy to the sooper-secrit evidence which indicates you're a horrible human being unworthy of being allowed to edit amongst true Wikipedians.--MONGO 03:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yesterday they were voting on an IBAN. I guess they realized how much that would have helped the encyclopedia and would have had a too undesirable effect on the person who's conduct spurred the Arb case.  --DHeyward (talk) 03:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The entire sordid mess could have been taken care of by motion. Arbcom does better than 100 editors at making a mountain from a pail of sand.--MONGO 03:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration temporary injunction enacted
The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the end of the Gamaliel and others arbitration case:

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 15:11, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? No reason was given.  No evidence presented.  No Right of reply asked for.   --DHeyward (talk) 16:13, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for the Committee about why they enacted this. However, you were very clearly notified of the consideration of the injunction and invited to comment, notified of the timeframe of which it would be enacted, and edited after you were notified. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 18:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @Dheyward, were you contacted at all (except for the talk page comments above) about this temporary injunction? --Kyohyi (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. In fact, they moved the vote in the middle of the process and I thought it had died until it was mentioned again.  No notice, no evidence, no request for response.  If you look at the notice, the link is dead.  No update that they moved it.  I had to hunt for it after OR mentioned it again..  --DHeyward (talk) 21:19, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There are many stupid rules we have to follow to live in a civilized world...be that as it may, any deviation from this hardline rule is not going to help you one iota. Considering the subject matter, maybe better to go do some proofreading at FAC or work on something...anything else.--MONGO 22:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, the nonsense grows though. Check out this revert .  Reverting an 18 month old edit I made.  I kinda think a change that stood for 18 months is pretty much consensus.  I didn't even remember making it.  Why bother editing anything with clouds?  I have no reason to believe it wasn't sincere and he did edit that section over 2 years ago  and he was nice enough to use revert so I'd be notified.  But force a BRD?  Not for me right now.  I'm easy pickings right now.  --DHeyward (talk) 23:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Perspective. When all else fails, resort to advice from the esteemed mentor John "Bluto" Blutarsky...here--MONGO 00:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Drugs? Are half the editors on this site sitting in an opium den somewhere?--MONGO 23:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Clarification
A few points of clarification: Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Assuming your evidence is referring to redactions on the Gamergate talk page and on NYB's talk page, GorillaWarfare used revdel, not oversight.
 * You were expected to be named as a party to the case before GorillaWarfare added her statement to the case request. Of course, she had no way of knowing that, because the recused members of the committee do not have access to the mailing list being used to discuss the case. It remains possible that additional parties will be added.
 * Please add my name too. Surely I disagreed with Gamaliel at some point in the past. One sacrificial lamb is hardly "balance"...not when an admin/arbitrator is facing the squad too. You need at least two peons to even the score.--MONGO 00:54, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I expected no such thing and no arbitrator mentioned me in their accept statement. I didn't ask for a case.  I didn't edit war.  I haven't seen or heard a single thing that connects me to Gamaliel's misconduct.  This is the Red Queen's "Sentence first, verdict afterwards."  --DHeyward (talk) 01:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You had the audacity to question authority! Thou must know thy place lowly serf.--MONGO 01:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I mean we expected to include you, and did not do so in response to GW's post. You're a party to a proposed temporary injunction for the duration of the case, which has passed and which will be enacted soon. So, independently of any other matters, it makes sense to give you the status of a party to the case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Where was any of this discussed so I would have a Right of Reply? Star chamber interaction ban that are vague and include an arbitrator, admin and signpost editor? Named party to a case where not a single accepting arb mentioned me?  If you are going to make these enforcement actions stick, I request an accounting of how they came about.  A broad interpretation of the IBAN would mean I am unable to discuss the case on my own talk page nor reply to the bully pulpit of Signpost editorials regardless of who wrote them.  This seems like a lot of information arrived to ArbCom through non-public channels by unidentifiable groups (much like how GorillaWarfare started rev-delling my comments as I detailed on evidence).  Please identify the sources and content.  There is no reason for ArbCom to protect powerful admin/arbs from simple editors. See Notification --DHeyward (talk) 04:49, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I thought I posted this already - either eaten by yesterday's server gremlins or I just got distracted, I suppose. The iban is two-way, so it really makes no difference who has which bits. If you want to know why it seems like a good idea, scroll up a few sections. If you want to know where you could have responded, the message announcing the proposed injunction explicitly invites your comment and the vote on the injunction was done in public. You are still perfectly welcome to submit evidence. Take the advice in Mongo's link or something; all this 'star chamber' rhetoric is hyperbole. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've got a question for you, what was he to respond to? That there was a proposal?  Evidence wasn't submitted with it, and an argument wasn't made as to why it should be done.  You can't very well respond to arguments and evidence that you are not aware of.  --Kyohyi (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have an issue with iban for the case. I do have an issue with being named.  Try this though, follow that link above about the notice and look for a vote now.  I clicked the notice when I got and there were three accepts.  I clicked it again, later, and it was gone entirely.  I thought it died.  Where's the notice of the new place?  Where's the notice that I was being considered as a case participant?  Everyone is confused by that bit considering all the other active participants.  --DHeyward (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) the explicit request for his comment was here, which instructed DHeyward to comment at the case request page (then titled BLP and the American Politician). 9 hours later, the case was opened and there was no more chance to comment at the requests page . The injunction was then moved to the proposed decision page, with no chance for comment. If this is not "star chamber" rhetoric, it surely is kafkaesque. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You're posting just a few sections down from notifications of poor behavior related to the case. Acting like it's a big mystery why an iban might seem like a good idea is an insult to DHeyward's intelligence.
 * DHeyward and yes, it would have been a good idea to update the link (I'll add that to the list of reasons behind my apparently quixotic quest for case requests to be subpaged) but come on, if you see a link to a subsection of a case request and subsequently the case is opened, you've got a pretty good idea where the subsection might have ended up. And if you're a party to a temporary injunction related to the case, why wouldn't you be a party to the case? I'm sure the conspiracy theory factory would be churning away either way - if you weren't a named party it would be because we were trying to make sure you got less evidence space, obviously, right? Just post whatever evidence you think necessary within the scope of the case and otherwise go about your wiki-business. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like posting evidence is a waste of time. "Just post whatever evidence you think necessary within the scope of the case and otherwise go about your wiki-business"...really? That comes across as post your evidence and we will make sure it gets shoved into the circular file. Sure, fine, an Iban is possibly not the worst idea, but that hardly justifies being a named party.--MONGO 23:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about why an iban being a good idea is a big mystery? I'm not about to commit a post hoc fallacy when it is the responsibility of those asserting problems to make their own cases.  --Kyohyi (talk) 00:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The point is more like "we're not actually trying to set traps for people", but I suppose once you've convinced yourself there's a conspiracy, everything looks like evidence in favor. (Arbcom is fifteen people, not all of whom were familiar with each other beforehand, coming from a pretty wide cross-section of the project, coordinating across multiple time zones by email, while trying to continue working on our other Wikipedia interests. We'd be really bad at conspiracy.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no idea how that addresses my last comment. Written words are so easily misconstrued...so much is lost without being able to hear the tone of voice or observe body language and gestures.--MONGO 02:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


 * FWIW, my body language and tone is collegiate discussion. I may say some things sharply but it's a mistake to think I am angry. Why be angry in a hobby?  For example, one of the things I wrote hastily was redacted.  I could have rewrote it in the style of WP using the exact same words but there's no point as it was already misconstrued.  The userbox issue was highlighting the dispute and not malicious, just a rather rhetorical foil just as the reference two editors made to "kicking my dog" was rhetorical.  The iban has no more effect on me than just saying "don't comment anymore."  However I fear it's being used as a stepping stone to a "more permanent solution."  That's my only concern with it.  --DHeyward (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What would that be? A ban from gamergate stupidities. Or the sordid cast of zero sum gain trolls and SPAs that haunt those pages. I think that entire affair should be deleted and salted. What an ugly mess that place is.--MONGO 05:04, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Who knows? Maybe I'll need to put a trigger warning in my signature.  I could change my name to "Trigger" after the horse.  I argued that GG be deleted and salted in Aug 2014 but what do I know.  I rarely edit there except when there are massive BLP issues or NPOV issues related to living people.   --DHeyward (talk) 08:25, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (in reply to you've got a pretty good idea where the subsection might have ended up. As indicated by my query, I didn't notice the updated location of the injunction discussion, either; in arbcom cases the proposed decision page typically does not become active until after the close of the evidence phase, and that a temporary injunction considered part of the propsed decision for the case isn't instrincially obvious. NE Ent 10:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk page
As I understand your IBan above, you're restricted even from the case talk pages. I see you self-reverted and I had forgotten about this IBan when I suggested you revert. --v/r - TP 07:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries. I took your advice there and I believe even without reverting I was in line with the IBAN.  I keep arguments in the abstract and it was more helpful to hear your comments on heat vs. light (and thanks for covering the topic, I am grateful and humbled by the number of people that have come out in support). I even changed my evidence to reduce the unfocused heat/light ratio unrelated to me specifically.  I wouldn't have commented if I thought I was in violation (either on that talk page or here).  I'm sure many will look at what I wrote and I have many watchers now.  It's my impression that discussing Signpost, Arbitration, ADMINACCT, and other policies are beyond iban per se but I will take more care that they are not anything but broad and unfocused comments.  I edited your comment here to keep it broad and unfocused.  I hope you don't mind. Your advice (as is anyone elses) is always welcome. --DHeyward (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others date extensions
The evidence and workshop closing dates and the proposed-decision date have been extended to 6, 13 and 23 May, respectively. For the Arbitration Committee,  Mini  apolis  17:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment
Please would you comment on this Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:No religion Thank you :) Olowe2011  Talk 23:18, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement topic/interaction ban appeal closed - Result: Ban lifted
As per the result of this this Arbitration Enforcement appeal, the three-way mutual interaction ban between, , and has been lifted. If you have any questions please contact me at my talkpage. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 20:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah...but avoid being baited or initiating discussion as much as possible. Think of it as not wanting to talk about an upcoming colonoscopy.--MONGO 22:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Won't be an issue. :). --DHeyward (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted
Hi DHeyward, in the open Gamaliel and others arbitration case, a remedy or finding of fact has been proposed which relates to you. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee,  Mini  apolis  13:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Hunger Games articles
Many thanks for you quick input on these. Meters (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


 * No worries. I'm not a fan and really don't know much about them except the blatant BLP violation of plagiarism allegations.  They all sound like distopian gladiator novels to me.  It's fun to watch kids rediscover a 2500 year-old meme of bread and circuses and think it must have all been invented within their lifetime and is their future rather than the past. :) --DHeyward (talk) 05:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've read them (my teen-aged kid's copies). OK but nothing spectacular. Probably better than most young adult SciFi. They certainly have more choice in the genre now than I did.
 * The editor who has been pushing the rather negative version just doesn't seem to be getting it. He's at AN3 for refusing to stop posting stuff to my talk page and yet he seems to think that I've broken 3RR by removing it. Meters (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Likely fading out
I'm nearing my pain threshold for this website mainly due to the blatant left wing bias that permeates it in every corner. I used to recommend some areas for basic referencing that had little partisan partic.ipation...but that is now rarely the course. Surely I'm getting older now and my perspective is more conservative than some child still in college. But I'm facinated that so many "adults" still cling to adolescent liberal notions, failing to grasp Churchill's oft cited comments in essence that if a child is not liberal they have no heart, but if still liberal as an adult one lacks a brain. Its like Sanders supporters....do they really understand what communism is? Of course not....they think the money tree is infinite or that everyone should be equally poor.--MONGO 04:00, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Definitely a sense of entitlement is manifesting itself. "Progressive" has been co-opted by a "me first" generation that doesn't support social progress at all. They lack the fundamental understanding of what "free" means.  Someday they may realize that the evil capitalists railroad robber barons were the richest people of their time and still needed a chamber pot - the poorest of us today have more wealthy comforts than the richest capitalists only a century ago.  Getting in the way of that type of advancement in wealth is very regressive and severely impacts the next generation in a very selfish way.  --DHeyward (talk) 07:50, 31 May 2016 (UTC)