User talk:Zad68

Archives

Older 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Jan - Mar 2012 Apr - Jun 2012 Jul - Sep 2012 Oct - Dec 2013 Jan        2013 Feb        2013 Mar 2013 Apr       2013 May        2013 Jun 2013 Jul         2013 Aug        2013 Sep 2013 Oct        2013 Nov        2013 Dec 2014 Jan       2014 Feb       2014 Mar 2014 Apr      2014 May       2014 Jun 2014 Jul        2014 Aug       2014 Sep 2014 Oct       2014 Nov       2014 Dec 2015 Jan       2015 Feb       2015 Mar 2015 Apr      2015 May       2015 Jun 2015 Jul        2015 Aug       2015 Sep 2015 Oct       2015 Nov       2015 Dec

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Thanks for 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)[reply]

No problem EdJohnston 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. Zad68 14:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{Read! Talk!} 10:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, 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. Zad68 14:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{Read! Talk!} 16:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, 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. Zad68 16:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 ^{Read! Talk!} 17:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

664309764: "timestamp": "2015-05-27T18:54:58Z"
664309864: "timestamp": "2015-05-27T18:55:47Z"

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. Zad68 20:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. ~~~~

Got some notifications to check my messages. Compare this message and this message [1]. 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)[reply]

Reported here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mishash--Taeyebaar (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taeyebaar an obvious sock, Bbb23 got supporting Checkuser info but I would have blocked on behavior evidence alone. Zad68 16:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

Hi Zad. Yesterday, you (very appropriately) semi-protected the talk page, indicating that it was a temporary measure. You did, however, protect it indefinitely, which probably isn't called for—yet. Regards, Favonian (talk) 16:00, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh! I had intended for it to be 36 hours. I'll fix, thanks for notifying. Zad68 16:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 [2]. Thanks--Taeyebaar (talk) 19:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This[3] 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)[reply]

DHeyward 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. Zad68 01:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please don't unilaterally attempt to shut down other people's edit requests, DHeyward. 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)[reply]

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. Zad68 02:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. Zad68 02:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Zad68. I've stated this elsewhere, I will repeat it here: I'm not disputing the existence of the ban at Talk:Gamergate, only the way some people are interpreting its extent. In particular I'm deeply concerned about other editors removing content from the talk page without leaving any trace by deleting posts made by complying editors, which clearly was not part of the restrictions as discussed.

My concerns of accountability, and those made by several editors regarding how the restrictions breach several core principles, should make us reassess the details of how people are trying to enforce it, now that we have several weeks of data about its impact. Diego (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I don't know if my comment is allowed on the meta page, so I'm copying it here. You implied that my complaint wasn't actionable, I have addressed that below.

FWIW It wasn't so much the 'rape' etc language that is non-neutral, it's how each side is presented. There is a very strong and passionate case made for one side, stated as fact -- while the other side is not presented like that. Qualifiers are used, it's said things are 'claimed' -- and indeed a great deal of effort is put into completely debunking the other side. This gives the strong impression one side is right and the other side is wrong. That is not neutral.

Somebody said this is 'non-actionable'. It's very actionable. You simply remove the criticisms of the second position, state things as certain and generally make a stronger case for it -- or you use the same qualifiers and tentative language for the first position as is used for the second, and likewise include a strong case for why the first position is wrong. That would make the lede neutral. Handpolk (talk) 07:06, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just found this. I'm sure the other side disagrees with them and I'm not saying they are right (I don't know who is right, this is all new to me). But there is 136 comments of people speaking in unison that their side is not being presented accurately. While the other side loves the article. I honestly do not know how a reasonable person could learn this, and come to the conclusion that the article is neutral. Handpolk (talk) 07:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zad68. Handpolk has been repeatedly violating the 500 edit 30 day restriction after being notified of it- specifically at the meta page for the Gamergate controversy talk page. It would be greatly appreciated if you could handle this- in the future, should I contact you for such requests or would AN/I or AE be most appropriate? PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 11:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I have told you repeatedly, there is no restriction for meta or sub pages. It says very clearly 'this talk page and this article'. Your interpretation that this applies to meta and sub pages is incorrect. You, however, have violated the 24 hour 1 revert rule, and as such should be blocked. Handpolk (talk) 11:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Handpolk: the appropriate place to report those who have violated the 1RR restriction is (I believe) the edit warring section of the administrators noticeboard, but I could be wrong and it could be requests for arbitration enforcement. Either way, best of luck! PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 11:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter the Meta subpage was set up without any clear instruction that the same 500/30 restriction apply. So there's no action to be taken regarding Handpolk's edits. However Handpolk has just been using the Meta page for article commentary, so I will fix the instructions at Meta and make it clear the same restrictions apply. Zad68 11:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks! PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 11:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, not sure if you saw or whether I was clear. The 500/30 rule now has the effect of requiring new and dormant accounts to acquire 500 edits outside of GamerGate. I think this is fine and will reduce SPA and socks. Also, it doesn't make sense to grandfather older pre-GG accounts as they are have also shown up as disruptive. I think it would also help to level these requirements across all editors so that conditions for editing GamerGate are the same. Namely, the requirement of 500 non-GamerGate edits and 30 days of editing be applied to every editor in that space. The goal is curbing disruptive SPAs from randomly editing and the even requirement for 500 non-GG edits remove SPA accounts whether they are established or not, just as I believe you intended with the time and edit rule. --DHeyward (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward this request regards an editor with whom you have an interaction ban. As the edit wasn't signed and it was moved, it's plausible you didn't know who wrote it. Closing here; I will take it up. Zad68 17:06, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I trimmed some inflammatory language in meta HAT note. I have no idea who made the original edit but Hatting has been contentious before and incivil notes only inflame the issue. I don't know why PtF would edit war over it considering there is an article 1RR restriction but I can see edit wars and inflammatory language being things to avoid on all gamergate pages. Here's my edit [4]. PtF has reverted me twice in order to retain the bitey and inflammatory language which adds nothing. No one argues for death and rape threats, nor should we be characterizing edits made by new editors as not useful. You've been policing it pretty well so I'd rather not continue an edit war to maintain civility if you can do it without antagonizing the relatively new editors. Also, I think it's pretty clear which version is preferable that asking for AE or 3RR will just start more unneeded drama. I can do that but it's rather pointless as I don't think anyone would argue that article needs more reverts and more inflammatory language. --DHeyward (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zad,

I hope you're keeping well. I'd just like to apologise for not following up on my (almost certainly flawed) bibliometric evaluation of the circumcision article about a year and half ago and I hope that it didn't cause too much of an issue for you. I just had to drop Wikipedia then as it was interfering with real life. The article still seems to be following WP:MEDMOS. Was there an RFC? Just to reassure you, I don't intend revisiting the article, but can I assume the same issues prevail on the article talk page (I'm afraid to look!)? Best, FiachraByrne (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Fiachra, delighted to see you around again! No, no problem at all, and actually I haven't been editing in that area for a while, there's lots going on elsewhere. I've been doing admin things, and electronic cigarettes are an area of interest now, as is Acupuncture, and I actually had meant to look in at Alt Med, where coincidentally I see you've been active. There have also been interesting discussions and proposals at WT:MEDRS, have you seen those? Hope things are well with you... Zad68 15:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Zad, and we'd be delighted to have you at alt med where there's now a pretty decent group of editors with mixed perspectives and no absolute extremists (it won't last, obviously). The article does need a bit of rethink in terms of structure and content. Re WT:MEDRS, I assume you mean the quackwatch discussion? My inclination is to argue that, where biomed content strictly applies, you need to stick religiously to WP:MEDRS and not make exceptions. Anything else serves to weaken the guideline, which is the best line of defence, and will look like double-standards. And I say that as someone who thinks that, understandably, WP:MEDRS can be applied uncritically and inappropriately to content on occasions where biomedical claims, strictly understood, have not been made (i.e. I have a narrow view of when WP:MEDRS should apply). Obviously, there will remain a significant problem of POV pushing in areas of alt med; but that's endemic here anyway. FiachraByrne (talk) 15:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[5] I'm quite disappointed that you chimed in after I voluntarily withdrew. You said some pretty incriminating things and I ask that you please provide the diffs demonstrating my behavior as you described, otherwise you too are casting aspersions. I can't recall ever showing ill-will toward Jytdog when quite the opposite has been true and I know full well you are as aware of it as I am. Please show me the diffs and if there is something I said that needs my apology, or if I haven't already apologized for speaking out of school, I will oblige. If not then I expect the apologies to come my way. Thank you. --Atsme^📞📧 20:43, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme what were the events leading up to this? I said "contentious interaction." Even if you don't feel that you meant ill will in your actions, that's certainly not how it came across, so it appears you're not seeing how others perceive you, to that point where (again, AGFing here) you stepped in to volunteer at a DRN case of someone who told you explicitly that they'd prefer not to interact with you. That's the judgment issue I was referring to. Zad68 21:01, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zad, I asked you to provide diffs that support the claims of ill-will on my behalf. What you showed me is another groundless allegation by an editor who is casting aspersions and now neither of you have provided one diff showing I said or did anything to warrant such claims. The onus is on you - please show me the diffs that support the allegations you are supporting with regards to my behavior, not more unwarranted aspersions cast against me by another editor who also failed to provide diffs. You might also want to review the ARBCOM case regarding casting aspersions when there are no supporting diffs. --Atsme^📞📧 22:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to provide diffs supporting something I didn't say. This is the last comment I'm going to make here, probably, but at some point this is going to catch up with you. Zad68 22:50, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You made the following statement: "...given your recent very contentious interaction with Jytdog in many venues". Contentious interaction? Many venues? Zad, those are your words and they imply that I'm the one who has been contentious, and I don't know where the heck you came up with many venues but it is absolutely not true. DR/N June 5, 2015 I believe you know full well it isn't true and you are the one it will come back to haunt. I have consistently AGF and maintained politeness and civility despite the allegations and aspersions launched against me. I am growing weary of it, Zad, and I certainly didn't expect an admin to make it worse. I had already voluntarily withdrawn from further discussion in that DR/N matter but you kept on casting aspersions against me after the fact. The onus of proof is on you - provide the actual diffs that support what your allegations against me or strike them. I don't want to see anymore diffs showing more unwarranted aspersions cast by others who also didn't provide any supporting diffs to back them up. I don't want such allegations to go unanswered only to be used against me in the future. I want them resolved now. As I said, if I did something wrong and owe someone an apology, then I want to see what I said - and not from another editor's POV. I want to see my words, not theirs. --Atsme^📞📧 23:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC) (moved diff into body of my post where it belongs 01:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]

• atsme look at the comments you made on A1's talk page shortly before i left that comment for you. you just piled into a discussion that had nothing to do with you, with insults. That was the last straw for me - where it became clear that you had no good will for me. before that you had piled into disputes i had, that had nothing to do with you, with negative comments, like clockwork. walk through your own diffs. I have.

I wrote you that note and have honored it, staying away from you, and I expect you to stay away from me. you have burned the bridge to the ground. way, way past apology. please stay away from me. if you keep at it, i will pursue an iban. i have had it. Jytdog (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zad, I am ignoring the rude interruption and will not allow it to derail our discussion. I asked you to provide evidence to support your allegations against me in your statement as follows: "...given your recent very contentious interaction with Jytdog in many venues". [DR/N June 5, 2015 Contentious interaction? Many venues? Provide the diffs because you discredited me at a noticeboard where I volunteer to help resolve disputes. You were wrong to make such unwarranted, unsupported allegations against me especially after I had already withdrawn from the case. As a non-admin, TransporterMan's response was far more responsible in his attempt to diffuse the disruption. I suggest that you either strike your comment at DR/N or provide the diffs to support it. --Atsme^📞📧 01:20, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the stick or I'll be filing for an I-ban tomorrow. I would rather spare the drama and your humiliation, but if you keep pushing this, that is what I will do. Your behavior toward me has been unacceptable, and it is clear to anyone who has watched it. Last chance. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are addressing me directly, I will respond. You are free to call this situation what you will, but if you are referring to my insistence on Zad providing diffs for his aspersions against me, I have no ill-will toward him or you as I've stated before. I already know such diffs don't exist and the ones that do are not flattering to either of you. My conscience is clear. I withdrew my participation at DR/N while you and Zad continued casting aspersions against me for the sole purpose of tarnishing my reputation. Regardless, I am not a vengeful person. Bygones. My only interest is in maintaining my integrity which I can/will defend with diffs against any and all false allegations. I'll accept your olive branch even though it has a little poop on the end of it - it would have been much nicer had there been ripe olives instead. I'm not nor have I ever been a vengeful person and definitely prefer peaceful coexistence over drama. You don't want the drama anymore than I do so if I may suggest that you try a little harder to be nice and AGF. I imagine Zad doesn't want the drama, either. I've always considered him to be a good admin with good intentions but possibly too busy and/or too trusting to verify that he's not walking into quicksand prior to supporting a position. It's much better for admins to be neutral and try to resolve disputes, not intensify them. Our discussions are noted and logged and I truly do hope they will rest peacefully in the archives forever. My purpose on WP is and always has been to improve and contribute to the project in GF. We are all getting paid the same amount - ZERO - so the only thing at stake here is our integrity and how we treat each other. I have expressed my views on noticeboards and I have remained neutral across the board which is the result of neutrality training over the course of a 30+ year career, and also as an official judge (retired) of a particular international sporting event not to mention journalistic integrity. --Atsme^📞📧 18:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stay away from me. I am doing the same. I have told you what I will do, if you don't take that request seriously. You have enough not-nice, even nasty, behavior toward me, demonstrated in diffs, that an iban will not be hard to obtain. You will do as you will. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Then please show me just one diff that supports your claim. I don't want you to have to dig deep into your archives, so just one diff will suffice. Just one. --Atsme^📞📧 19:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I told you above where to look - your comments to/about me at A1's page the day I left you that note. Straw that broke the camel's back. Done here, and going back to not interacting with you. Jytdog (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen the claims made about Atsme at DRN, I became curious about the elusive diffs referenced above. This is probably not what you all are referring to, but it's all I could find with only hints about A1'a talk page to guide me. Is this it? petrarchan47คุก 20:32, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zad,

Could you indefinitely block me. Thanks. :) FiachraByrne (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's alright, I can use the wikibreak enforcer script apparently. Thanks again though. FiachraByrne (talk) 22:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]