User talk:Headbomb/Archives/2017/July

Arbitration clarification request archived
The GamerGate arbitration clarification request of June 2017, which you were listed as a party to, has been closed and archived. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 06:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Red to Blue
What do you think about making this page blue? — xaosflux  Talk 14:21, 16 July 2017 (UTC)


 * See February Optional Poll


 * Honestly, I think I'd be stellar with the tools, and make limited, but good use of the bit. As far as an RFA goes, I think it'd be a 65/35 no-consensus shitshow. I do things in contentious areas, I'm direct, I [usually] favour action over idleness, and I don't put up with bullshit regardless of 'standing' in the community [I've gone after admins and other bigshots in the community, just as I've gone after sockpuppets and oversight-levels of harassers], which means I've stepped on more than one set of toes. The question in that RfA won't be "Would Headbomb make good use of the tools / abuse them?" but rather some type of "Headbomb clashed with others in the past, he doesn't have the right temperament" mud-slinging contest, with people debating whether or not I tick enough boxes for whatever the requirements-du-jour at RfA are, with liberal amounts of quote-mining / shoehorning my words into whatever axe the !voter has to grind. Eons ago, the big thing was edit summary usage, then it became vandal fighting, then it became content work, then it became CSD logs. Whatever the current thing is, I'm probably not doing it, because I'd rather improve Wikipedia and foster cross-WikiProject collaboration than spending my time on the drama boards.


 * If you want to nominate me, I won't refuse, but you'll need to write a damn solid nomination to ward off the peanuts gallery. The only work I'd be interest to do would be technical stuff (e.g. db-move), bot policing, and obvious vandal fighting / revdeletion of grossly offensive material when I come across it, like trolls shitposting links to trollsites with nudes of our female editors / other attack pages. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:43, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response - with that ORCP being so recent (I don't normally follow those) may need to give it more time. Keep up the good work regardless, — xaosflux  Talk 16:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note quite sure what the recentness of it has to do with anything, or how much of an impact it has on things either. I don't really follow these things either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:47, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

News letter layout
Not sure if you store a template or something for this newsletter, but for the next issue I made this change. I do think that this whole thing can easily be a div however (if it needs the special table sizing, it could use display:table). —Th e DJ (talk • contribs) 19:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Participation at arbitration
When you participate at arbitration, please take notice of statements such as "before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person". I've tidied it up for you, wearing my clerking hat, this is just a note for the future. GoldenRing (talk) 15:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I noticed I didn't do that, but you fixed it before I got to it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hypatia (journal)
An editorial board is dynamic. Some people will retire or pass away. Eventually, the whole board will consist of people that weren't around during this affair and weren't involved. Those board members/associate editors that played an active role are listed in the section on that transracialism article. And it is beyond me to fathom why a grad student who helps out with the administration should be mentioned in a journal article. Just saying... --Randykitty (talk) 06:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah things will evolve, and the article can reflect that when they do. But our guidelines always have been we can mention the exact EB structure/composition if/when sources discuss its role and importance, and we have those sources for this journal. You could do an RFC on this if you want, but I'm pretty sure it would close very differently than the philoSOPHIA one. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My reading of the AfC consensus is that we mention individual members of the board if their are sources for that member's involvement. Those members are listed in the next paragraph, with sources. Indiscriminately listing all members is not what should be done. And regardless of what happens with the directory of editorial board members, it still doesn't explain why a grad student with a minor administrative role needs to be listed. But I guess I'm fighting windmills here, so I've removed the article from my watchlist. --Randykitty (talk) 07:14, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Typos
I switched back to Firefox that contains spellchecker. Expect less typos from me in posts from on my friend :) -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Arb case evidence
Hi Headbomb, could you please add a link to where there is consensus for changing the ISBN magic link. I know I've seen the discussion, but I can't find the link now, and having it in an easy to find place will be helpful later on. Also, while I'm here, could you please consider removing "at least those that bothered to comment"? Thank you! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I can find that link, although pretty sure it's already been posted in one of the other sections. But why is ""at least those that bothered to comment" problematic? It's something I added to clarify that not every BAG member commented on the RFC, as BAG has a lot of active membres on break / semi-active members / inactive members. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I know I saw a link to it somewhere but I can't find the somewhere now. There's more civil way to say it than the negative connotation of "bothered" is all. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , the RFC link is here . As for "bothered", some people bothered to comment, others didn't bother. I really don't see what's negative/uncivil/otherwise problematic, but I'm open to other wordings if you have suggestions. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Getting rid of 'bothered to' would probably do it, but it doesn't matter that much. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:21, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll do that. No big deal either way. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:22, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has asked that evidence presentations be kept to around 500 words and 50 diffs. Your presentation is over 1,350 words. Please edit your section to focus on the most relevant evidence. If you wish to submit over-length evidence, you must first obtain the agreement of the arbitrators by posting a request on the /Evidence talk page. For the Arbitration Committee,  Mini  apolis  17:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll trim it down / make an extension request. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)