User talk:Zad68/Archive 2015 May

The Signpost: 29 April 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:12, 1 May 2015 (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. The discussion is at DRN:Female genital mutilation. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Cannabis (drug). Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  17:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So are you now ready to take your proposed edit to the article Talk page instead of reverting it back in?   17:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should check the talk page before spamming warning templates for behavior you subsequently engage in. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  17:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad you started a Talk page discussion here: Talk:Cannabis_(drug), I have already replied there, happy to continue this there.    17:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Acupuncture
Hi Zad68 Yobol et al have taken ownership of this article that prevents a consensus. I have no idea whether accupunture is effective – it did not seem to bring me any benefit when tried it - but that is not the point. There are editors that are preventing a broad NPOV. For six year in R&D I learnt to discount ( re:Karl Popper) bad hypothesis. But only on verifiable evidence. John Snow was dead, by many a year, before his thoughts on cholera became accepted. Following in the sprit of  WP, other editors are getting  (very)  frustrated that some other  editors think it is their right to pontificate their heart felt beliefs and   deny  any edit that goes against those beliefs. As an administrator, step back, and ask,  is-this-a-worthy-WP-article-as-it-stands? Then decide where you need to focus. I am beginning to see why WP has lost so many academics because they have got fed up with the bitching between every-one-can-edit  editors (not that I personally disagree with this, as it keeps us on our toes  - but there are limits when confronted by editors that just pontificate Ad nauseam ). --Aspro (talk) 23:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 May 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Bolding in articles
I arrived at the Morgellons article from elsewhere, looking for the origin of the name, and after wasting 5 minutes, finally found it buried in the middle of the "History" section. I'd normally expect terminology to be defined early in an article or a section, but in this case the contributor decided to make it hard on the reader. Apparently you like to inflict the same hardship. — QuicksilverT @ 17:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * how about this?  17:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


 * That's better. Thank you. — QuicksilverT @ 18:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Clean block log
OK, so you're boring too. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC).
 * Hey, "unblemished" is in the eye of the beholder! (And have you LOOKED at my block log?)    17:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ohh, talkpage access removed and everything, you so badass! Come to me when thou hast seen the elephants dance. But sure, I take your point about the upset user having a clean block log like you. Bishonen &#124; talk 17:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC).

Yarnbombing
Source no.11 deals with yarn bombing Zad and it refers directly to the bull. The Anti-Bull alliance party is active throughout the sources. They ran the entire campaign against the Bull. Anyway I don't think there was a double entendre there, unless one was really looking for it. Maybe we should just use the word erected instead. It is of the same nature and it negates the potential for misinterpretation. Thank you Trout 71 00:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes thanks I realized after I hit save the problem with my comment, no worries.   20:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Admins unblocking
Zad why can't Admins unblock themselves on this wiki. You can on others. Only the buerocrats can't, balance of power and that. I am rather surprised by it. Trout 71 20:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * well it's possible that an admin can turn against the project, or have their account compromised, the admin would need to be blocked and it would be a problem if they could unblock themselves. No idea how it works on other wikis.   20:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh right. And if they wanted to be unblocked or re-promoted? Trout 71 20:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * In the case of a compromised account, if the account owner can prove they have regained control the the account, they can be unblocked. An admin who is blocked due to a gross breach of community trust and was de-sysopped can theoretically regain the sysop bit by going through a successful WP:RFA.  Also an admin can be temporarily blocked like any other normal editor for edit-warring, etc. and have to wait out the block.    20:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, admins *can* unblock themselves. See Blocking policy. Unless it's undoing a self-block you imposed on yourself it's a very bad idea. EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , huh! I didn't know that and wouldn't expect.  So it's possible, but I'm not sure it's such a good idea it's set up that way.   14:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well it is sort of important that it be set up that way. Otherwise one admin could knock off the other admins and take the wiki. If that admin also was a bureaucrat then there would be nothing to be done (bureaucrats can't unblock, I think). Anyway are long-term blocked Admins always able to return as admins? Would everyone notice and how long does it take to stop them? Thank you Trout 71 15:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It happened again...
...not quite sure why. See Mustang. For some reason the server keeps logging me out. --Atsme ☎️📧 01:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , got it. Whoops!  Not sure...  Doesn't it give you a pink background if you're editing while not logged in?  I'll fix it if I'm around but you're probably better off emailing an oversighter.    01:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * it does on my laptop, but this iPad sucks - it's the original iPad which is all I have with me.  It will be next week before I can either buy a new computer or get the graphics card replaced. I may just do both.  --Atsme ☎️📧 02:10, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you - that worked. --Atsme ☎️📧 02:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

AE Request
I posted the original now closed request, I was advised the post under my regular IP. I did so, you removed it. Please replace it. 166.137.252.63 (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the IP addresses used have any history at all, so they can't be the IP used as the basis for the complaint. Please either use the IP that was editing at the time the problematic behavior alleged was encountered, or log in.  Otherwise we can't review the histories of all parties involved.   18:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I edit as an IP from an ATT hotspot. I apologize for the multiple addresses but that's how ATT does it apparently. IPs are prevented from editing the article as its restricted to autoconfirmed users, so I have not edited the article. My complaint is the editor's attitude toward multiple registered users, not myself. I'm not aware of any requirement that the party filing must be the affected party. Please restore the filing. 166.137.252.63 (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that I initially filed my request through a proxy, intending to post all responses through that fixed IP to avoid confusion. I was told that was not acceptable, and the request was closed because of it. The multiple IPs you see now are because I'm following the instructions I was given. 166.137.252.63 (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Editing through proxies isn't allowed. Changing IP addresses and the inability to demonstrate that a series of edits across IPs are yours, and also that multiple edits from the same IP might not all be yours, makes trying to do what you're doing difficult.  I was about to ask you to identify which Talk page edits might have been yours but that's pointless, because there's no way to tell.  I'll restore the AE posting but realize this is problematic.   18:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand the reason for that rule but it seemed like the best of bad options. I was wrong. I considered registering an account but it likely would have been blocked as a sock puppet account. I've done mostly minor and non controversial edits so my changing IP hasn't been an issue before. Thank you for restoring the filing. 166.137.252.63 (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify my involvement here, having blocked once, I don't have anything to add to the IP. Except, he/she seems to have lost the proxy in favour of a mobile phone network. It isn't very convincing. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, because our rules do not indeed specifically prohibit a dynamic IP posting a request, nor the posting of a request by someone who apparently has no demonstrable interaction with the accused party, I've restored the AE request.  18:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, nicely handled. Let things be judged on their merit. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

My notes
Requested enforcement by: IP used to file original complaint: IP used for first repost: IP used for second repost: IP used for Zad68 User Talk post: 18:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding closure
Could you please explain what you mean about "opening AE to misuse"? Exactly what sort of misuse are you foreseeing? In particular, given that WP:BATTLEGROUND is official policy, how can it be "misuse" of AE to bring forward an evidenced complaint about such behaviour? I don't understand the appeal to WP:SCRUTINY (that seems to be what this is about?), since I can't imagine any realistic way that someone could "instigate" battleground behaviour except by also engaging in it - in which case, someone else ought to bring that case separately.

I also don't understand your concerns about setting a precedent. As far as I can tell, WP policy is explicitly not determined that way, for better or (IMHO) worse. 74.12.93.177 (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * My closing notes cover your questions directly, and I don't see a need to repeat myself. If you're concerned the WP:OSE disallows the consideration of precedent (and I don't think you're right about that), feel free to ignore that part of my closing notes, it doesn't affect the outcome.   15:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * To clarify, I am not the IP who filed the AE request. However, I am appalled by how this case was handled. I think your closure is predicated on a violation of WP:GOODFAITH, and I think you are setting a worse precedent by not considering this case. Beyond that, here are some other downsides: 1. You are literally establishing the precedent that IP editors can be wronged and have rule violators torment them to no end, but they will never have the ability to go to AE to make it right. *The majority of Wikipedia's content comes from IP editors* --in fact named accounts are the minority here--and to say that the majority of Wikipedia's users can never go to AE to make things right is appalling. 2. You are literally establishing the precedent that editors behaving badly, perhaps demoralizing/driving established and/or new editors away from Wikipeida to no end, can never have a case brought against them because anyone who would do so would be someone who  wasn't tormented directly by this user, so their bad behavior will continue to do damage. Do I think I will change your mind on this case? No, people are entrenched and rarely change their minds about anything if they are challenged by an external party. However, I hope for Wikipedia's sake that others at AE see the absurdity of this closure reasoning and other cases like this are handled differently. And that you will recuse yourself from cases like these in the future rather than try make miscarriage of precedents like having most Wikipedia editors unable to even go to AE for rule enforcement. 108.52.24.214 (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Sorry you feel that way, but I don't think you're really reading all of my closing comments. Several of the statements you're making, and the consequences you predict from them, aren't based on things I actually wrote or believe--you should be happy to hear that.   16:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=662157351&oldid=662156729 your closure], and the careful wording. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

AE Close, Concerns
, I'm the dynamic IP editor who initially filed the AE case against. I noticed you closed 's re-filing on the grounds that his Gamergate topic ban prohibits him from filing AE requests for violations in the Gamergate topic area. This is ironic given that his topic ban (for violations in the Gamergate topic area) was the result of an AE filing by editor, who at the time was subject to the same Gamergate topic ban  is now. Is 's topic ban therefore invalid because the request that prompted it should have been closed and if not, can you explain the different standards applied in these two cases? 166.171.187.239 (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hah, so this was the right place to voice my concerns. sorry about that, but i made a mess of the said discussion by unhatting it and pointing out the same fact my fellow IP user rightfully and correctly stated here. except i was talking about this poor fellow being blocked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bramble_window by a complaint made by no other than our NorthBySouthBaranof, on the topic of Anita Sarkeesian which he is topic banned. here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Gamergate/Requests_for_enforcement/Archive2#Bramble_window it seems this rule of not letting topic banned users made complaints is really arbitrary. 195.174.183.35 (talk) 01:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think you will get an answer to this question despite how good it is, unfortunately. I hope and  prove me wrong. 108.52.24.214 (talk) 04:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Acupuncture
You said you'll review the sources and conclusions at Talk:Acupuncture. Can you update us on your progress? Or at least tell us how long it might take. - A1candidate  15:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 May 2015

 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

ARBGG DS page restriction
Hi Zad68, I have a few notes for you: Everything here is written in my personal capacity and explicitly not in my capacity as an arbitration clerk nor on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 16:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ACDSs are no longer logged on the main case page, rather on Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log; let me know if you'd like me to update it.
 * It'd probably be easier to see if the restriction on new accounts editing was boxed in a more prominent manner on Template:Editnotices/Page/Gamergate controversy; you can use ivmbox or something similar for that effect.
 * I'm not certain about the validity of the restriction, as from context, the quote once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning. from above applies only to sanctions against individual editors, but I think I won't submit a formal clarification per IAR.
 * thanks I will fix it.  02:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried to fix the main article editnotice and now that second one doesn't appear at all, do you have any advice?  14:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Try using . --L235 (t / c /  ping in reply ) 17:37, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , ✅, beautiful. I think my error was trying to use editnotice instead of ivmbox like you suggested, I thought using editnotice would be more proper, but the DS template itself uses editnotice under the covers and I think the page processing software only shows the first editnotice.  Thanks for your help!   17:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello User:L235. You raised a question about the validity of the 500-edit restriction on Gamergate controversy. There are precedents for page-level discretionary sanctions going back many years. See for instance Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. These restrictions apply to all editors. Someone doesn't require an individual notice before they are expected to obey the restriction. See also Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. "Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence."  (Note the phrase "without warning"). In practice editnotices and talk page notices are usually applied to the article. It is assumed that anyone who chooses to edit the article has been adequately notified. In practice it is common to forgive a person who claims to be unaware of a page-level restriction, at least the first time. EdJohnston (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, you are correct that 1RR is a valid use of discretionary sanctions, as it was specifically authorized by WP:ACDS, which states that semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists) are authorized. However, a blanket prohibition on editing based on edit count and account age was not specifically authorized. Zad68's contention above was that WP:ARBGG, any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning authorized the blanket prohibition based on edit count and account age, but in context, that clearly referred only to sanctions on specific editors, as it was preceeded with once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic. In any case, I won't be pushing for an amendment from the Committee; it was just a passing note. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 00:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC), minor edits made 00:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC).
 * EdJohnston, the problem is that this prohibition does not apply to all editors, but instead disenfranchises a very large percentage of existing WP editors and all people outside of WP, while allowing other editors full access. Our usual approaches either remove the ability for all editors to comment (the rare full protection on a talk page), or provides a barrier that is easy enough to surmount if you are serious about making contributions (autoconfirmed). This is neither, as the barrier to entry is now very high for new editors, and nonexistent for others. The examples you give are quite different, in that they apply equally to anyone who might contribute. - Bilby (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, not sure if I should be posting here or making a new section (not even sure if I should be bothering Zad's talkpage at all with this, but whatever, there's discussion here), but I've thrown up a post on the Village Pump to discuss the issue in a place where editors with fewer than 500 edits/30 days wouldn't be violating an arbcom decision to discuss the same arbcom decision. Feedback (positive or negative) is appreciated! Riffraffselbow (talk) (contribs) 01:43, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification.  02:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts
I think the "registered + 500/30" qualification is supported by the existing intent and language of the ArbCom ruling such that one doesn't even have to reach for the IAR card. Semiprotection is a "registered + 10/4" minimum qualification; 500/30 is a bit further down that same road. If you accept the argument that was made to me that most edits are made by IPs, the move from "unregistered + 0/0" (no restiction) to the existing and well-supported "registered + 10/4" qualfication excludes more potential editors than the move from 10/4 to 500/30. And as pointed out, there are other restrictions like the 1RR that apply to everyone, even those who haven't edited the page yet; 500/30 isn't different in that respect either, and the kind of restriction isn't without precedent. I'd like to point out the two real benefits to Wikipedia with the 500/30 restriction: First, I think we'll see better arguments overall, because I don't see that the 500/30 restriction really advantages either "side" here. In considering this restriction, I did think about "Will this advantage those who feel the article is unbalanced against their 'side'?" and the answer I think is truly No: Those who come to the article looking to change it but who are inexperienced in Wikipedia's content rules shoot themselves in the foot by making clumsy suggestions or repeating well-worn arguments and get turned off by the experience. As a result their arguments are made poorly and don't receive follow-up. If those editors started out somewhere else first, they'd understand why certain changes or arguments aren't appropriate before even getting to the page, saving themselves and everyone else a lot of time. Second, if the account is that of a SPA or meat/sockpuppet, their goals aren't aligned with ours, and so it works against WP to accomodate them. I'm happy to see the cost-of-entry for those accounts increased dramatically. The bottom line is that current conditions have made the GGC article and its Talk page arguably the worst possible place for a truly good-faith brand-new editor to begin their WP editing career. An editor who really is interested in furthering Wikipedia's long-term goals won't be turned off by having to edit in other areas first for a few weeks. We have to remember that Wikipedia isn't a debate club or a government-sanctioned free-speech zone, it's an encyclopedia written by individuals who volunteer their time, and that preserving volunteer time and providing a pleasant working environment are very important. Anyway, those are my thoughts here. I think the page-level sanction is supported by both the existing intent and wording of ArbCom, and is truly in support of Wikipedia's goals. Between my AE closing notes and here, I think I've written all I'd need to to explain my action, and I don't really plan on arguing it here that much more. If there's an editor who still questions it, they should (I imagine) open an WP:ARCA request asking ArbCom to clarify whether my action is indeed within the scope of the remedies available, and I'll participate there. 02:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * At some point in the past the Committee was asked (informally) whether the list of page restrictions at WP:AC/DS was restrictive or just examples and they said that it was intended to just be examples (I think they intend to clarify this during the the next housekeeping motion in the coming months). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, the third point was just passing note; I don't intend to do anything about it. Will there be any response to the first two points? Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 04:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)  Oops, didn't see the reply. --L235 (t / c /  ping in reply ) 04:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * So there's an additional "no new accounts" restriction on Gamergate, which appears to be a reasonable reaction to the problem there.
 * Now how about Red Pen's battleground mentality, which was the topic of the three enforcement requests opened, yet has been ignored completely? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Andy, take the issues you have with TRPoD to the appropriate forum or leave TRPoD alone. PeterTheFourth (talk) 13:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder in that link: Red Pen being let off from 6RR abuse because his friends share his same biases too. Now he's been whitewashed at AE too (three filings, all showing clear evidence of the battleground behaviour he's been admonished for before). For enforcement of the arbcom judgement against him that's the appropriate forum.
 * Zad68 - why close an enforcement filing against Red Pen (and with evidence) with new restrictions on others, but no mention of Red Pen at all? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * please don't do that, it comes across as poisoning the well, Andy's question is legitimate. Andy I did review the diffs, but not just as listed by the filer, I reviewed them in context on the Talk page. I was indeed leaning toward a mild sanction, but the AE request also got a comment from another uninvolved admin, and an arbitrator who was active on the original case just a few months ago, both of them calling for no action.  I reviewed the GG case work page, the first set of diffs provided for TRPoD's behavior there, and the second set of diffs added later, and compared them to the diffs the AE filing had.  Reviewing all of this, in my judgment, no action was a reasonable result.  I will say, though, that with the new page-level conditions in place, if that sort of behavior continues, I'd argue for a sanction.   15:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So if I understand this correctly, and you've looked at the full context of the talk page conversations, yes? I did too. I assume you would agree that there was no vandalism, or personal attacks, or BLP violations, or incivility, in the diffs that were posted? The major problem on the talk page, requiring a nearly unprecedented level of protection, is that the new editors politely disagree with the current article and those who wish to protect it. You're right that there's a problem on the page, but I feel you're absolutely incorrect with your solution. True, the 30/500 level of protection was applied to the Nagorno-Karabakh article, which is probably a sensitive topic due to the deaths of nearly 40,000 soldiers and the displacement of over one million civilians in the Nagorno-Karabakh War. What's more, a user in that AE request actually posted proof that there was a coordinated effort to disrupt the Wikipedia article. Gamergate controversy is an article about a series of offensive tweets and outraged articles that resulted in zero deaths, zero arrests, and zero injuries. It's almost comically irrelevant for the amount of attention it has received, and the silly editing wars it has spawned. In addition, no one has actually posted proof that there is an ongoing effort by Gamergate supporters to disrupt the article. As for this deadly serious problem of "being disagreed with by new editors," I have a solution: Welcome them. Invite them to read the archives. Point them to an WP:RFC that answered their question previously (like these: ). Ask them if they have any specific edits in mind. If an editor can't handle that simple interaction, the editor can always ignore the comment. Heck, I do it all the time, because talk page conversations are not compulsory. What editors absolutely should not do to new editors, because it goes against everything Wikipedia supposedly stands for, is bite them, mock them, taunt them, or silence them. I mean, this remedy is blatantly disregarding two of the five pillars. You say Gamergate is a bad place for new editors to start their careers, yes? But isn't that just shifting the blame onto the newcomers? "Don't edit here, because the established editors are pretty vicious." I would urge you, as others have done, to reconsider this remedy. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk pages as well?
Good morning. I'm writing to express my concern about the sanction you've imposed on Gamergate talk pages. You've essentially invented a new type of page protection (dodrant-protection) that lies somewhere between semi-protection and full-protection. I think that while this may be a swell idea for the article pages, it is wholly inappropriate for the talk pages. After all, these are talk pages --- talking about improvements to the article is what they're for. We can hardly keep up our "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" values if we deny users the opportunity to even discuss controversial articles.

We just don't protect article talk pages. We don't even semi-protect them. It contravenes the protection policy. Please reconsider. Hi DrNick ! 13:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * actually Talk pages do get semi'd sometimes, it's unusual but it happens. I was involved in getting Talk:Autism semi'd due to long-term disruptive editing from an individual who was using IPs.  That Talk page is still semi'd, although I'd support removing the semi now. As to your question whether this goes against the principle that Wikipedia is an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit", truly it doesn't.  Many many pages are protected, many editors are topic-banned or blocked, or fully site-banned.  IPs have significant restrictions on what they can do compared to established, registered users:  they can't create articles, rename pages, upload images, edit templates, use Twinkle, !vote in RFAs, etc.  Anyone can still edit the GCC Talk page, it just takes a bit more work to do so than it did previously.  Remember that the first principle is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and rules are set up to further that purpose.    15:24, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Already, this sanction is stifling reasonable discourse on the talk page. I have no dog in the GG fight, and while I admire any admin who tries to shape things up in any of the DS areas, this over-broad protection could set a nasty precedent.   Editors, all editors, need a place where they can work in good-faith to collaborate on article improvement.   You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.   Hi DrNick ! 16:58, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Is it stifling reasonable discourse? I'm looking at what happened subsequently at the article Talk page here, and also what happened at the User Talk page here.  Nothing is going to be perfect, and that's for both options of doing nothing and doing something.  The question is whether the option we're currently trying is better.   17:06, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not believe these restrictions are onerous. Restricting edits to accounts that are at least a month old and have at least 500 edits demonstrates that these accounts weren't created solely for the purposes of editing the GamerGate article. This is one article out of 4+ million other articles that are available for anyone to edit. This restriction discourages SPAs from diving into one of the more contentious talk pages on Wikipedia. And as there is no deadline on Wikipedia, any edits from an account that was just created today will be just as valid as they will be on June 18th. This just provides them with an opportunity to learn about Wikipedia policies and practices by getting experience editing less divisive articles.
 * And, as has been said, these restrictions can be lifted whenever they are judged to not be of any value. Liz  Read! Talk! 22:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The diff linked above by shows what might reasonably be considered a partisan SPA removing a good faith, on topic discussion of article content. I'm not sure if This restriction discourages SPAs from diving into one of the more contentious talk pages on Wikipedia can be considered an accurate description; and I really can't believe that this is what was intended to be covered by the restriction. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Ryk72, I am not saying either way whether I would classify the editor whose diff you're providing as an SPA or not, but Wikipedia doesn't prohibit editing by SPAs. What Wikipedia does prohibit is disruptive editing behavior like WP:IDHT, persistent WP:BLP violations, and misunderstanding or misapplication of content policy and guideline like WP:RS.   is correct where she says "This restriction discourages SPAs from diving into ..." (my emphasis):  SPAs can edit the article but they can't dive into it.   14:12, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Zad68, J0eg0d has only made 78 edits but has repeatedly posted to Talk:Gamergate controversy today. He has received notices informing him about the restrictions but if he continues to post on this article talk page, further action might be necessary. Liz Read! Talk! 01:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Page level restrictions
Hi, Apologies for the interruption. My inquiry is with respect to the page level restrictions that were placed here. When looking through the WP:DS policy page, I noticed that the set of page restrictions approved for discretionary sanction are: "semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists)".

While I admire the intent of what we are trying to achieve, based on the Discretionary Sanctions policy, I am concerned that this new sanction is not valid. To quote, It is especially important for this particular talk page, because it's so widely watched, that it should stand as a positive example and avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

I look forward to your thoughts on this aspect. Many thanks. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have an alternative suggestion that would reduce the disruptive repetition of previous discussions? Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy (WP:BURO + WP:IAR), so even if there were no rule permitting these restrictions, they can still be imposed provided the decision has consensus. In the case of discretionary sanctions, "consensus" means whatever is agreed by a brief discussion of admins at WP:AE. The "especially important" quote above is puzzling because that was made in a particularly unproductive section at gamergate talk where the author of the quote has kept the thread active for six days after it was closed by an admin. In the six days, no proposal regarding improvement of the article has been made, yet the section drags on. That ties up the time and energy of productive editors who want to both monitor activity at the article and its talk, yet also contribute in other topics. WP:ARBGG was intended to stop disruption—it is not a tool to ensure everyone is nice to each other while discussing the same points over and over without limit. Editors with an interest in the encylopedia regard such activity as disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 05:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * the WP:ARBGG Sanctions available section provides surprisingly wide lattitude for administrator judgment for enforcment, it says I may apply "any other appropriate remedy". I feel the 500/30 minimum is an appropriate remedy.  Thanks for your concern...   14:03, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Zad68, Many thanks for your response; I genuinely appreciate it. Is the section of the WP:ARBGG Sanctions available this one, 1.2 (vii) Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning .? (my underline). Thanks again. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I was referring to.  14:16, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt response; again appreciated. I believe I understand the reasoning. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * you're welcome.   14:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Zad68, Apologies for the interruption again; the restriction seems to have "kicked the hornets' nest" a little bit, so I'm sure you have lots of others asking questions too. If you could, however, clarify if the restriction as it applies to the Talk page is:
 * a) a ban on editors with less than 500 edits / 30 days from commenting on or otherwise editing the Talk page; meaning that the standard BANEX exemptions apply, but also that such editors may be blocked for violations.
 * or
 * b) a page level restriction enabling editors to override WP:TALK/WP:TPO by refactoring (removing/undoing) other editors comments; meaning that BANEX exemptions do not apply, but also that editors will not be blocked for violations.
 * I checked the log but I'm still unclear, though I think it's likely the latter. (lack of clarity likely my failing rather than anyone else's).  See here for some additional context.
 * Thanks in advance. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 23:44, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not have a constitution or a thousand-page list of rules, so there is no need to precisely document every nuance of a gamergate restriction. What is known is that the topic required an arbitration case, and pointless repetition of settled issues is ongoing. I do not know what scenarios are envisaged in the above (someone with less than 500 edits or 30 days experience is required to revert BLP violations?), but whatever occurs, WP:AE is available to discuss any amendments that are required if a problem arises. No one is going to block a new account who makes a couple of inadvertent errors. Johnuniq (talk) 00:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Zad68, Apologies for the interruption again; but there seems to be some confusion. This edit shows an editor requesting sanctions (blocking?) of another based on their good faith, on topic, editing of an Article Talk page, which is in "violation" of the newly implemented "page level restrictions".
 * This would seem to indicate that parts of the community are assuming that the restriction is a) a ban on editors with less than 500 edits / 30 days from commenting on or otherwise editing the Talk page. Could you confirm that this is an accurate understanding of the restriction implemented or if these parts of the community are in error? As always, thanks in advance. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies if the question seems more pointed than it is intended to be. I'm just concerned that editors will be expecting certain admin actions (including sanctions), where perhaps they shouldn't be. I figure it would be better if everyone knew what they could & should expect. And yes, I do sincerely apologise if I seem to be one of the bigger "hornets"; please WP:AGF that I really do care about the project - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:58, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , sorry, I'm traveling on business today, and so can leave only a brief response at the moment, but I will cover your several questions: As the notice, the remedy applies to the article and its Talk page.  It is limited to those two pages, it isn't a "topic ban."   has it right, it isn't completely necessary to try to pigeonhole the remedy, but as with any other editing restriction, the usual exceptions apply:  edits that revert obvious vandalism or obvious BLP violations are OK, experienced editors should be familiar with that.  Editors that don't yet meet the 500/30 qualification and somehow miss the editnotice may be reverted, but please leave a courteous edit summary.  If you'd like to go the extra mile you can even take the discussion to their User Talk page.  If an editor persists in ignoring the restriction, you can report them to WP:AE for what should be prompt action in a clear-cut case.   14:10, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Zad68, Thanks for the response. Good luck with the business trip. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 14:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 May 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Linking to the subpage for 'Discussion of notice'
Thanks for [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=next&oldid=663850930 your recent closure] at AE which took care of a puzzling question. While perusing your message, I couldn't figure out what you meant by 'the subpage'. I guess it is Talk:Gamergate controversy/Discussion of notice. Could you modify your closure to include that name explicitly, or at least give a wikilink? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem I put a link into AE discussion pointing to the subpage with this edit, if that isn't sufficient let me know, no problem for me to add more, I'm always happy to do things to make the jobs of the admins patrolling and reviewing AE easier.   14:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

500/30 Restriction
Hi, Zad68, Did you intend for this editing restriction to apply just to the article Gamergate controversy and its talk page or all of the associated GG articles like Brianna Wu? Thanks for any clarification you can offer. Liz <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 10:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , the restrictions are page-level restrictions specific only to the main article and its Talk and article-specific subpages.   Actually that article itself is FULL protection through September 20, so that's quite a step up from what's at the Gamergate article, but the Talk page has NO protection.  Interesting. I don't see the same kind of history at Brianna Wu as at the Gamergate article so I don't see a reason to apply the same page-level restrictions there.  There's apparently been a blip of Wu-related activity in the news so that's caused a few recent discussions, but before that it's been quiet.  A few apparent BLP violations on the Talk page were redacted.  So things are "all systems normal" there, let me know if you think things are starting to get out of hand.   14:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification, I'll revert my edit.
 * The issue right now regarding Wu and Gamergate are editors who demand to see "proof" that Wu received death threats, otherwise it is "alleged threats" and this content regarding this subject should be deleted. This demand involves second-guessing reliable sources who say she did receive threats and constitutes original research. But the subject keeps coming up again and again lately. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 16:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * , OK that seems like a very run-of-the-mill BLP content dispute, should the article say "X happened to Living Person Y" or "Source says X happened to Living Person Y"? Why not take the proposed phrasings to WP:BLPN?  Should get sorted out there quickly and then you all can move on to other stuff.    16:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll bring your suggestion to the talk page. I went to revert my edit but there have been a lot of edits in this interim period, some by the editor I reverted. Thanks again. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 17:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

(Semi-? whatever)protecting user talk pages without even reading the supposed 'harrassing' edits
Do administrators / whoever can protect pages really do this? That's pretty cool. I must suggest this to people. In case of a feud, just claim harassment, and the opponent is automatically silenced. The way it is in real life, too, apparently. But this is literally the first edit of mine today in which I didn't make a suggestion how to improve Wikipedia, so I shall end it now. ~

In fact, I used the API to find the timestamps of Fir's report and your reaction (at the latest! and that's counting the ban/block in itself, and not the *decision* to ban/block), and the difference is 49 seconds, and that's assuming favourably that you were notified of it instantaneously.

My four edits together count 326 words. Considering that the average reading speed is apparently around 300 WPM (according to Wikipedia, '250 to 300'), you are an exceptional reader... and an exceptional monitor of report pages. ~


 * If you wish, you may speak your mind here, as long as you follow WP:TPG. But until you stop doing the one thing that indicates to me that you're going out of your way to make it more difficult for others to communicate with you, I am unlikely to respond.   20:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I am not particularly interested in the brand of communication that seems in vogue on Wikipedia, that consists of telling people 'go away' when you present them with data. ~

Length of protection for EvergreenFir's talk page
Hi Zad. Yesterday, you (very appropriately) semi-protected the talk page,. You did, however, protect it indefinitely, which probably isn't called for—yet. Regards, Favonian (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * D'oh! I had intended for it to be 36 hours.  I'll fix, thanks for notifying.   16:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Looks like he's back
Got some notifications to check my messages. Compare this message and this message. This "new messenger" has a very low edit history, Arrowsmith School being amongst the first of his targets which Wiki-Shield blanked major sections of at least a dozen times. Can you look into this please?--Taeyebaar (talk) 02:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Reported here Sockpuppet investigations/Mishash--Taeyebaar (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * an obvious sock, Bbb23 got supporting Checkuser info but I would have blocked on behavior evidence alone.  16:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Zad, I think we got a problem here. Mishash kept blanking out reliable sources and inserting {citation needed} tags while leaving defensive claims by the Arrowsmith program in hopes to make the criticisms part sound like fiction. Previously he accused me and others of being on the payroll of Luminsoity, another 'brain training' program that competes in the market against these programs. Now he accuses me of WP:OWN and tried to confuse third party editors into the same edit wars. He's also labelled Max Coltheart and Anne Castles, both qualified neuroscientists as 'anti-brain training activists' and remove their citations that argue against the psuodoscientific claims made by these brain training marketers, who by the way aren't certified in neurological studies.

I think the article on the Arrowsmith School should be protected for sometime and while you're at it you might want to protect Dore Programme as well. He blanked out reliably sourced criticism from scientists there as well only to be reverted by another editor. I'm quite certain he'll be back to cause more mischief in a few days. I had to revert him at least two dozen times before action was taken against the sockpuppets.--Taeyebaar (talk) 01:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: Edit wars
Hi Zad, thanks for the message. The two editors were not inserting their own good faith edits, but rather shifting it to the sockpuppet's version. The second editor DaffyDavid sent me a warning message, so I responded by reminding him that he was reverting it to a sockpuppets version. He messaged me back demanding evidence, so I sent him the link to the checkuser case which is when he stopped edit warring. Prior to that he even left an edit summary claiming he didn't know which version to leave it in, an obvious indication that he was confused into this edit war.

The previous party only duplicated the edit summaries of the blocked sockpuppet, accusing me of WP:OWN when that was not the case, and reverted it to the same version of the blocked sock- which included leaving a {Refimprove} tag in the middle of the article content, when it should have been on the top. It was quite clear that both these parties were mislead by Mishash's sockpuppet into thinking that I was somehow trying to take ownership of the article, when I was just restoring reliably sourced sections which user:Mishash kept trying to blank out.

I understand that under normal circumstances I would be eligible for a block for edit warring, but this was not the case. In my opinion it's also not helpful when third parties enter revert wars without looking into what caused it. The edit warring has stopped, but I strongly suggest the article be protected for a while before Mishash returns as a sockuppet and instigates more edit wars. And again while you're at it, you might want to protect Dore programme as well since removes reliably sourced content from there as well. Thanks--Taeyebaar (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 May 2015
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">
 * Read this Signpost in full
 * Single-page
 * Unsubscribe
 * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Please address this edit summary
This isn't his first uncivil edit summary and it's a pretty straightforward that new protected edit requests start in new sections so they aren't so convoluted. In addition, the template shouldn't be used until consensus is reached. --DHeyward (talk) 01:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I honestly can't figure out what was intended by the edit summary, what's going on there at the Brianna Wu Talk page now, and what exactly the edit request is. What action are you expecting me to take?  I had actually logged on to check something else, if I have time later tonight I'll look into it.  If you feel it's a serious enough violation of an Arbitration sanction, and it needs prompt attention, you should file a request at WP:AE.    01:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)


 * He's already under Arb sanctions. "Sea Lion" is a derogatory term (google it with gamergate or wikipedia.  The main action is to separate out his edit request into a new section.  --DHeyward (talk) 02:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't unilaterally attempt to shut down other people's edit requests, . If you wished to make it a new section, you didn't have to put nowiki tags around the request. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 02:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I am out of time for the night but I took a quick look at the Wu Talk page and can't figure out what exactly the edit request is that everyone so far is agreeing to. I'll look again later, please specify exactly what the before and after are.  It's obvious to everyone else I guess but not me.   02:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC) Oh the request is just to add the Boston Globe as a source to the existing content.  If someone else doesn't get to it before I do, I'll do it later.   02:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)