Rhoark

Hi Rhoark, when responding to people on talk pages, could you select "edit section" instead of edit page? It makes it much easier for people reading the talk page history or looking at their watchlist, to see if a talk section they're interested in/involved with has had a response. Sorry for bothering.Bosstopher (talk) 14:53, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Will do, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Rhoark (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I just read your comments here and was very impressed by your reasoning and citation of Wikipedia policy. Very well argued. Unfortunately, I don't think you will convince many other editors who are entrenched as they don't seem to be discussing the issue with you in good faith (e.g. RPoD's "mommy mommy" comment) but I can say you have certainly changed my view. Thank you for that informative post.

Even if there is some debate over the way you invoked the policies you cited, let's not forget the most important Wikipedia policy of them all. PirkeiAvot (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

• I edited the above to remove references on the talk page. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Hopefully enough people can be convinced to move forward with achieving neutrality. Rhoark (talk) 21:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

People who link to the "most important Wikipedia policy of them all" always seem to forget or ignore the very important conditional that is attached to to the IAR part. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I have filed an enforcement request related to your recent conduct at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Rhoark. You are welcome to respond. Hipocrite (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I am no admin and is my personal opinion ... you need to take a break from GamerGate, at least right now. Or reflect more on your past actions. It's not looking good for you. starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 05:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • I will take that under advisement. Your concern is appreciated. Rhoark (talk) 05:30, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply
    • For what it's worth, I am inclined to think that you have the best interests of the encyclopedia in mind; I'm not sure how much it means, coming from me, but I heartily second Starship.paint's suggestion.

On an unrelated note (and why I came here), I wanted to mention to you that (I believe) statements are generally limited to 500 words, unless an admin approves longer. I'm certain they'll let you know if they have an issue, but it might be worth you considering asking one of the admin's for an exception, or how you can maintain your point while shortening your statement. AtomsOrSystems (talk) 05:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Additionally, regarding the WP:V core content policy (not to be violated), the "burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material". Regarding the essay WP:BRD, the person making the edit (not the revert) is supposed to discuss, after the revert happens. But if a "reversion is met with another bold effort, then [the reverter] should consider not reverting, but discussing". starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 07:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

The following sanction now applies to you:

Prohibited from editing the Gamergate controversy article and its talk page (including all sub-pages of both) until 12:00, 02 May 2015 (UTC).

You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in this arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

• I will also warn you that misconduct in the area discretionary sanctions have been authorised ((a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b)) will likely result in a broad topic ban for an extended period of time. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rhoark, thanks for making these updates—plus one I hadn't even got around to asking about yet. The article still has a number of problems (something editors have pointed out in the past: here, here, and here) and I'd like to figure out the best way to go about fixing that. For one thing, much of the text is highly critical of Mr. Shaw, yet relies only on sources from 2003 and 2004, without reflecting later developments. If you are willing to hear me out on a few specifics, let me know. Either way, I'll be posting them to the Shaw discussion page soon, and probably go to BLP/N next if you're busy. Thanks again, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

@WWB Too: It's not something I'd care to do the legwork on, but if you can provide a few sourced draft sentences about later developments, I'd certainly vet them. Rhoark (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

No problem, I've been working on that in the background. I'll put that together and likely post those up at the Shaw discussion page later this week. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 02:38, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your input over there. We didn't see quite eye to eye, but what you said made a lot of sense and I really appreciate both your diplomacy and that you took the time. Formerly 98 (talk) 22:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Rhoark (talk) 23:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Rhoark. I was about to issue a trout slap to myself for my knee-jerk reaction to IP 78.68.210.173 on the relevant ANI, but it was kindly closed off by Drmies. I've written a lengthy comment on my own talk to the IP as to the circumstances, and have left a talkback notification for that particular contributor.

Nevertheless, I'll be following that particular RS/N for as long as the thread is kept 'alive', not because I'm particularly concerned with that particular IP having started a new entry, but at your behest. I am more than happy to continue discussion as to parsing where Western, Russian, Chinese or any other news analysis is relevant dependent on the context. Whether or not we see eye-to-eye on any issues is irrelevant: I don't always see eye-to-eye with any of the other contributors/editors with absolutist views on the value of purportedly RS sources and opposed to 'naughty' sources that should never be seen as anything less than always biased (i.e., Western sources are always RS, whereas 'other' sources have an agenda). All sources used for recent events in particular have an agenda. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Iryna Harpy: Thanks for being constructive. The discussion seems to have died out. I had hoped for better. I don't agree with the Russian point of view, but I agree with those who feel it deserves better treatment under NPOV policy. I think it will be of historical interest. Twice I've pulled out a chair for them at the table by quoting a policy framework for them to work under. Both times the response has been to tantrum and not present even a draft sentence for article space. My position remains the same, but I'm not going to wade in with my own drafts. Rhoark (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

My pleasure, Rhoark. Defining RS is highly problematic and, more often than not, I find myself 'writing for the enemy' despite the fact that I have not turned to mainstream reportage as my personal preference for information for around 40 years. Erhem, would you believe that I was paying attention whilst still in my mother's womb? No?

There has been much in the way of railing against commercial news services, but discussions as to how to evaluate RS are constantly being marred by overenthusiastic crusaders who have only just encountered socio-political/economic/geostrategic interests and think there are simple answers to complex questions because they're obviously the first people to have identified these discrepancies... ever! Discussions normally end up taking place within the confines of specific queries at the RSN where they're quickly dismissed/ignored.

The only methodology for tackling higher level questions of narrative lines is to start a dedicated talk page. Again, this approach has been tackled behind the scenes of the RSN and NPOVN, but 'arguments' have descended into arguments simply because anyone can join in. While, in theory, I do believe that these should be open venues, the objective ends up being lost in more 'my 2¢ worth' than focus on the nitty-gritty of the exercise.

Sigh, well that's my 2¢. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Greetings. The said cabal (of which Drimes seems to be a part of, for he stalks every post I make and is the one that closed the mediation, the administration notice, the post in the discussion page) has made the Battle of Ilovaisk a semi-protected article so I have not even been able to edit it, they have instead deleted my and other peoples comments on the talk-page. As I have exhausted all options I will from now on only insult or ignore Iryna Harpy. Good game, let the propaganda flow free. I am probably done with editing for a while again. 78.68.210.173 (talk) 14:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rhoark. I took a look at your RSRUBRIC essay, and it reminded me about an essay I myself wrote a while ago, Verifiability, and truth. Not entirely the same topic, but certainly related, I think. Thought I'd just share the link in case you haven't seen it yet. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 18:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, what I'm doing depends on looking at a lot of different perspectives. There have been several times I was about to commit a sentence to the essay, then realized I had been on the receiving end of that claim before and disagreed with it. It's a tightrope act. Rhoark (talk) 18:54, 17 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sometimes I visit Reddit, trying to get an advanced look at potential trouble headed Wikipedia's way. I just saw your post there attempting to build support for game archiving. As a librarian, I wanted to express my admiration for your efforts. I know nothing about game archiving in particular, though I have studied and written about the preservation of digital material so I'm aware of the complexities involved in archiving this stuff that you were trying to explain to people. It is disappointing that so many there were determined to look at what should be an important and neutral issue through the lens of their ideology. Gamaliel (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

There is indeed an account named rhoark on reddit expressing some very insightful views. They are also probably very handsome. It's unfortunate that so many people continue to focus on "winning", without realizing anything but peaceful resolution is not a winning condition. Thanks for reaching out. Here's some more about game archival you might find interesting [1] [2] Rhoark (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the links. The Gamasutra article was especially interesting - and depressing. It's sad how much of our technological and digital history is being lost because of inadequate historical archiving. I ran into the same problem with my research (as yet unpublished, but I'm hoping this year) into early webcomics. We simply can't pinpoint for sure what the first webcomic was because so much from the internet and online services in the 90s was simply not preserved. Gamaliel (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rhoark, this is to let you know that an Arbitration amendment request listing you as a party has been archived to the GamerGate case talk page, because there was no consensus for amendment among arbitrators. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 17:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I looked over your editing history and found that you have restored or added original research/Synth in way too many cases. You made you first edit on November 24 last year, restoring these unsourced pearls of wisdom, reworked them and later added your opinion which you sourced to blogs that say nothing of the sort and don't even mention the topic of that article. A short stint at Talk:Frankfurt School conspiracy theory followed where you argued that describing "Cultural Marxism" as a conspiracy theory is "prejudicing" and something about editors editing for "the Russian side". Then after 16 such edits, you arrived on the GamerGate controversy page and talk page, essentially becoming an SPA who did very little other than discuss GG, comment on GG enforcement requests and the GG ArbCom case, and work on GG in your sandbox. After you were prohibited from editing the GG page, you branched out into new gender related topics, where you continued to add or restore OR/Synth like here, here and here. You have opinions about these topics and you have found published material that you believe is relevant so you add that material although the sources do not discuss the topic of the articles. It's like you added a sourced paragraph about virginity to the atheism page. Your sources discuss virginity. But they don't mention it in connection with atheism. But because you think that virginity is obviously related to atheism, you just add it to the atheism article. You are a regular on the OR and RS noticeboards although you don't seem to follow the WP:OR policy in your own edits. The ArbCom case was meant to prevent the GamerGate nonsense from spilling over onto other articles, especially gender related ones, but so far it looks like your unhelpful editing hasn't received adequate scrutiny. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

This walk through memory lane is cherry-picked, unrepresentative, and generally without purpose. I'm sure I could tell an unflattering story about your editing history as well, but I don't care to do that. If I have any preoccupation in my editing, its countering editors that twist OR to push their PoV - which brings us here. I'll be addressing the specific content questions on the relevant talk pages. Rhoark (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've made a request for dispute resolution regarding the Moon Landing article. Just wanted to let you know :) LadyLeitMotif (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Anal jihad. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Guy Macon: Your reversions are violations of WP:BLP, as I've explained repeatedly on the talk page. I've requested comment from BLP/N rather than edit warring with you. You are not in the right with respect to content policy, and if you continue to push this as a conduct matter expect it to WP:BOOMERANG. Rhoark (talk) 16:02, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Go for it. There is no living person named "Rape Jihad" and the article in question is not a biography. "BLP" is not a magic word that allows you to delete anything you don't like, and Wikipedia's BLP policy does not protect large political organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood from criticism. There is no 3RR restriction on reverting vandalism. Note that I !voted for deletion at the AfD -- I don't think the article belongs on Wikipedia -- but that does not imply that you are free to vandalize it. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

The fact that the article is headed to deletion makes me disinclined to file any extra proceedings about it. BLP applies everywhere on the encyclopedia, and WP:BURDEN applies everywhere in article space. I suggest you look closer at these policies, lest the next time you try these tactics you encounter an editor less forbearing than I. Rhoark (talk) 16:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is necessarily any problem with your edits. Thank you. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the History of software engineering page, your edit caused an ISBN error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,

Hope all's well. I noticed you stopped by at the No Gun Ri Massacre talk page. I also noticed that you sometimes provide third opinions. Right now, what we need more than anything is the involvement of third party editors on this page, which has seen some turmoil and dispute in the past. If you could perhaps help mediate the discussion and editing process, we'd all really appreciate it.

Thanks,

GeneralizationsAreBad (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm preparing to comment on the RSN question at least. Rhoark (talk) 17:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

You may have missed it. You may have decided to ignore it. If so, not very nice. But I would like you to address the question posed at Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre when you deigned to dip in from nowhere and seem to say, "Oh, a bunch of lies isn't important when WP: protocols are involved." Are you serious? Or not? Here's the exchange (explain, pls)...

'I read your link. I did not find any persuasive argument based in policy. Rhoark (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)"

I'm not sure what policy or policies you're referring to. The one I'm working by, honesty (as in "the best policy"), says a guy who plays fraudulent shell games with documents is hardly reliable. What am I missing? Charles J. Hanley 17:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjhanley (talk • contribs) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.122.243.84 (talk)

Hi, Cjhanley. Rhoark would be watching the article as a neutral editor, as am I. I've also been following the development of the article content as a third party, and believe it has been subject to ownership problems virtually since its inception. Personally, I'm looking forward to Rhoark's query at the RSN as I haven't been able to find the time to address POV problems with the article content itself at this point... but there definitely are problems with the article as it stands.

I'd be grateful if someone could ping me once a new section is opened if I don't get the chance to comment on the article's talk page prior this. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have already said what I was going to say back in June, responding to GeneralizationsAreBad at RSN. Rhoark (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Rhoark, I missed that RSN discussion. Could you point me to where it's archived? If not, I'll search the archives so's I can get a handle on the current status of the Bateman issue. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

You can search the archive for Bateman. The discussion was stale when I saw it, so I wrote on the article talk page. [3] [4] Rhoark (talk) 14:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Cjhanley: Any policy would be a start. I don't doubt there are problems with Bateman, but use reliable sources to describe those problems in the article. Don't scold everyone about the inclusion of a viewpoint with significant attention from secondary sources. Also, if you are the same Charles Hanley who tried to block publication of Bateman's book, you should drop the stick immediately. Rhoark (talk) 04:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

The web of deception woven by Bateman 15 years ago has ensnared too many otherwise sensible people. No one "tried to block publication" of his book. The journalists who confirmed No Gun Ri wrote his editor warning him that Bateman had spread lies on the Internet about the massacre, carried out by his regiment, and about the journalists, and that his manuscript should be carefully fact-checked. We gave him examples. The editor, a U.S. Army colonel, checked nothing (it defies belief that he even read it before publishing that horrorshow of a book). Bateman then turned around and accused the journalists of trying to block publication. How they would have accomplished that, he didn't explain. But at least he had you believing him.

As for your suggestion of citing other sources to knock down Bateman, this is a root problem of a No Gun Ri Massacre article already out of control. Inserting material debunking each bit of Bateman nonsense would inflate the wordage, and confuse the reader, well beyond the current overkill and confusion. Similarly, citing too much from the 2001 U.S. Army "investigative" report, a blatant whitewash, as anyone reading even the current article can readily see, would require still more words showing that the report concealed this and lied about that. In the end, the reader gains nothing. (By the way, this "counterpointing" was tried in some cases, but WeldNeck simply reverts everything he doesn't like -- even more of a root problem with the article.)

What the article needs is simplification, sticking to what is known and unknown about a well-established war crime. It should not be an article waxing on about infiltration via refugees (as though piling on these rumors and shaky reports justifies the slaughter of women and children); it should not be an article about the Army report and its myriad deceits; it should not be an article about Bateman's lies-laden 2000 attack on the AP, long ago made moot and pointless by official and journalistic inquiries corroborating the original report.

GeneralizationsAreBad, Timothyjosephwood, Irondome and Wikimedes appeared interested weeks back in taking on the challenge, but things have bogged down. At Talk:No Gun Ri Massacre#To move ahead on Background section, a proposed edit of a relatively noncontroversial section awaits. Comments, revisions are invited. I hope we can move ahead and restore some quality to the article, hopefully with help as well from Iryna Harpy and from you. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 14:53, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

It is not acceptable to discard significant viewpoints for the sake of simplicity. There is no maximum or recommended length for an article on Wikipedia, but its possible the information could be organized better. See WP:SUMMARY. I've said before, if reliable sources have something to say about soldiers' motives or state of mind, that's important to include. It doesn't matter whether you believe that information does or doesn't justify the soldiers' actions. Rhoark (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Rhoark, if you were more involved, you would better understand the situation. The "soldiers' motives," that is, the stories and fear of infiltration, are included, clearly stated right off the bat in the Lead section, again in the next section, and again in the next. The issue is one of balance, "Undue Weight" in WP-speak: that is, the subsequent piling on of supposed examples of "refugee infiltration," two of which were false, a couple of others weakly sourced, an unnecessary exercise that turned the article into one as much about infiltration rumors as about the mass killing of villagers.

As for "significant viewpoints," no serious academic or journalist knowledgeable about No Gun Ri considers this deeply biased serial fabricator to be "significant." As for his "viewpoint," which will it be?...

• On his page 126, he writes of the NGR killings, "If they took place as described at all. ... the killings occurred in dozens and possibly hundreds of the small misfortunes that make war so horrible."
• Then, on pages 198-199, he says there was a mass killing and he alone has determined "the truth, supported by historical evidence," that is, his made-up scenario of mortar and small arms fire at NGR, and between a dozen to "slightly more" than two dozen refugees killed. (This from a guy who didn't even go to Korea and speak with witnesses.)
• In between, on page 151, he again denies NGR's confirmed reality, saying of a 19th-century massacre, "in the case of Wounded Knee, at least the event itself had occurred."

Or should we put in all the "viewpoints" from this sad, mindless book?

What's needed is help. Read in, read up, help out. Thanks. Charles J. Hanley 15:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I've redacted part of your comment because of BLP concerns. — Strongjam (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

This has been brought to my attention. Please don't waste editors' time with fraudulent COI claims. Gamaliel (talk) 01:43, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have no direct knowledge as to Mark Bernstein's actual business relationships; however, he stated unequivocally that he sought to establish such a relationship with the Warren campaign in 2012. That is, without a doubt, sufficient evidence for good-faith suspicion that a conflict of interest may exist. I have followed the advice and directions of WP:COI precisely by making a civil post on Mark Bernstein's talk page. Rhoark (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Roark says that I "stated unequivocally’ that I “sought to establish" a business relationship with Elizabeth Warren’s campaign. This is a deliberate lie. I wrote the following:

I think that Tinderbox would be a terrific tool for field organizers. I offered copies — as many as you need. Training? You got it. Want it non-disclosed to be sure I’m not a snake-oil charlatan? Fine.

In short, I offered what all campaign volunteers offer -- to use my personal abilities and professional skills and resources on behalf of the campaign. The passage cannot possibly be read as an unequivocal statement that I sought a business relationship: it describes an offer of service to a campaign that was eagerly seeking volunteers and which went on to become a new legend in Massachusetts politics. MarkBernstein (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

What are you after? I consider your response (the portions that are not ad hominem) to be sufficient to allay concerns. Unless someone else decides to take it to the COI noticeboard, I consider the matter resolved. However, if you continue to accuse me of lying, in order to defend myself I will need to elaborate in further detail why I found your statements problematic w.r.t. Wikipedia policy. I don't think you should be eager to go down that road. Rhoark (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

“Please, sir,” Mark said, “have some more rope!” MarkBernstein (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Rhoark: and @Gamaliel: Hi there Gamaliel. By way of introduction I am a UK blogger and journalist. No socking here - my real and pen name are shown clearly on my user page. I consider that you may have been too hasty and mistaken on policy when you warned Roark.

I recently wrote a series of articles about an ArbCom case in which a Wikipedia Administrator and CheckUser accused a prominent politician of sock puppeting and editing his own page. However it transpired that the administrator in question had been an unpaid volunteer for and supporter of a rival party. ArbCom removed the administrator's privileges, finding WP:COI.

My articles were the source of followups in every major UK publication and cited by Breitbart.

The ArbCom ruling sounds correct to me. Politicians usually have paid staff and volunteers. I do not see how a politician could escape CoI just by getting a volunteer to make changes. Even if the volunteer acted independently as in the ArbCom case, would the politician's opponents and rivals feel comfortable with an avowed supporter doing edits? ArbCom were pretty clear. I (and others) are very concerned about the failure to address WP:WikiBullying and other adverse issues associated with some editors. There are also concerns about the contact of some editors with the Guardian newspaper.

It looks to me like Rhoark was correct on policy. Gamaliel's enthusiasm for this topic may have strayed over the line - doubtless in good faith - into WP:WikiBullying so I invite Gamaliel to reconsider whether there is an issue here and whether in fact on mature reflection Gamaliel would like to apologise to Rhoark and withdraw the warning.

I will be producing a video on this topic soon and invite Gamaliel to get in touch via the email address on my blog so I can send him some questions I have. As I have observed, my work gets read by a lot of people.Vordrak (talk) 11:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I stand by my position that I consider the matter resolved, with respect to any possible financial incentive. There was apparently no business relationship between Eastgate and the Warren campaign. I am still displeased about the ad hominem attacks that have resulted from his unwillingness to accept that a reasonable person might conclude that he sought to establish such a relationship. I'm also disappointed he has framed this as a criticism of his political affiliations; those are entirely laudable. He should probably be cautious with his edits during the 2018 re-election season, as should any volunteer, but as long as edits are on the volunteer's own initiative that's a milder form of COI that I don't think policy requires to be burdened with all the formal processes outlined at WP:COI. This is my first foray into COI issues, and I'm not familiar with the ArbCom case you mention, so I'm certainly no expert, but this is my reading of the situation. Rhoark (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Actually Rhoark to cut and paste from WP:COI, Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a COI. Being a supporter is not necessarily a problem but being a volunteer assisting a campaign is, certainly according to the policy as written. I respectfully think you should stick to your guns and have invited Gamaliel to reconsider his use of the word, 'fraudulent' in relation to the COI query. Vordrak (talk) 15:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I do not think it is appropriate to call my notification fraudulent. I have no plans to further any formal proceedings about either the COI or Gamaliel, but I don't think my status as the one having made the notification privileges my opinion or gives it any official status. Other editors may consider themselves affected parties. Rhoark (talk) 16:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

You might want to mosey on down to my contribution in User talk:Jimbo Wales and participate in my section. Vordrak (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rhoark, it looks like you're caught in the policy (or guideline) tango: people ask for specific articles where the guideline is causing problems, and then pounce on you for allegedly trying to deal with those articles by modifying the guideline. It's all very familiar. Anyway, thanks for your willingness to discuss and explain your "fringe" position. I think this tiny overall change will be very useful. Departing significantly from the single leading theory should not be enough to call something "fringe". So I am satisfied with this and doubt much more is possible.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's an improvement, but I think still leaves too much wiggle room to label a significant minority as fringe. I think "departs from" should be narrowed to "is incompatible with". Rhoark (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Anythingyouwant: I'm not sure its a good idea to have made that edit while discussion is ongoing. Rhoark (talk) 15:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

It seemed advisable to lock in uncontroversial incremental changes as we go along. If the proposal is to change from "depart" to "incompatible" then I am open to hearing arguments on that.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I see you give third opinions and I'd like to ask you if you could take a look at this and give your opinion as to how those sources could be added to the article in a matter that keeps the article NPOV. Thanks. Jørgen88 (talk) 22:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Looking into it. Rhoark (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's not generally of encyclopedic interest when someone makes an ass of themselves on social media. The incident generated some interest in a few sources that could be considered reliable for some claims. They are, however, all sources with significant conservative biases and reputations for accuracy that would make me want to hold them at arms' distance. Essentially they just seemed happy to make hay of a liberal saying something dumb. It seems pretty clear the suggestion that people should commit suicide was facetious, though his later explanations show sincere commitment to some fairly divisive views on race. If his views on race were considered more generally noteworthy, this incident would be worth a sentence in a larger section. As it is, WP:NOTGOSSIP. Also, given some of the statements you've made about this, you would probably benefit from reconsidering your personal sources for daily news. Rhoark (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

But wouldn't you agree that the leftist liberal media (which is most of the MSM) ignoring this while jumping on the opportunity to criticize similar or more moderate comments by the other side of the political spectrum, is biased in itself? I personally like to read a diverse amount of news sources with different political leanings. Right now the article reads very much as WP:AUTO and/or WP:FANPOV which leads to WP:SOAP. Leaving out well sourced criticism will only make it more POV. Jørgen88 (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

There are also sources on the left that would behave similarly if the shoe were on the other foot. In such a case it might even be easier for the story to break into the mainstream. Doesn't really change the analysis where Wikipedia is concerned. Rhoark (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

By "analysis where Wikipedia is concerned" you mean that WP:NOTGOSSIP §3 is your main focus for not including it in the article? To me, the article currently looks more like a §4 violation, however, and §3 underscores WP:LIBEL, which clearly isn't an issue regarding the sources I have provided. The sources also looks like they satisfy the BLP requirements. But I have to admit, this is getting rather tiring and my experience on Wikipedia is that more and more users use exhaustion strategies and bold reversions to get their will, in which I have better things to do and will most likely yield. Thanks for your input though. Jørgen88 (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Arbitration can be quite opaque for outsiders, leaving an opportunity for fringe bloggers to sometimes have their views taken credulously. Thank goodness such a thing has never happened, especially not as concerns GGC. Nope. Not ever. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello, I see you stated that EllenCT was the filer and therefore had "first mover advantage." My understanding is that she was asked to cut and paste an ANI complaint that VictorD7 filed against her. Perhaps this doesn't change you views but I hope you don't mind my pointing that out here. Ciao. SPECIFICO talk 16:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

The clarification is appreciated, but my intent in that statement was only to warn against hasty conclusions. Rhoark (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Actually I was asked to take my report to AE. I was away at the time so EllenCT pounced on the opportunity to do it herself, hijacking the process by twisting it into a report against me, which, as Rhoark rightly points out, allowed her to reframe the issue and largely change the subject, sowing confusion among admins. VictorD7 (talk) 00:03, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Guthrie vs. Elliott, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Thompson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rhoark, I noticed that you're working on a rewrite for some of the GGC article, and thought that (if you are not already aware of it) the essay WP:CREATELEAD might be useful in your endeavours. In suggesting this, I am not attempting to sway the balance in any way; I have not read the whole of the essay, only noticed that it seemed well received on the author's Talk page. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 05:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Ryk72: Thanks for the pointer, but the lede isn't where I'm looking at. I'm working from the base of the pyramid up. Rhoark (talk) 00:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Understood. FWIW, I think that you're taking a good approach in sorting out some longstanding issues; pretty much along the lines of the ArbCom recommended review of the article. The essay might come in handy down the track. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

On another note, I'm a little concerned with some of the changes at Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) which seem like they might be construed as "winning" a content dispute by changing policy & guidelines. Thoughts? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I responded over there. In short, that's what it looks like. Rhoark (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

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

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rhoark, I dont think we have edited any of the same articles, but I could be wrong. I have closed a lot of RFC's as a NAC, its one of the things I like to do. The RFC is going to be very hard to close if editors do start to make choices. Its going to be long and complicated, and so will the close which isnt always good, look at the RFC above on the page and the discussion afterwards. All of the multi option RFC's I have seen to date with more than 4 or 5 options have ended in no consensus. Im not saying that the scope of MEDRS is or isnt overreaching in this section. I just suggest a few less options and a little narrower focused RFC. If that means cutting or combining in the current RFC or starting a new one I leave up to you. The topic of the RFC is a good one, and a RFC is needed. AlbinoFerret 14:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just a suggestion, you might want to archive box the old section, or collapse it so it doesn't become a pint of distraction or editors commenting on it and not the new question. AlbinoFerret 19:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I will make a decision on that 24 hours after the post where I solicited suggestions on refactoring. Rhoark (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good, it was just a suggestion. I think you did a great job on the new question and it will likely get a lot of good responses and make the job of the closer much easier and probably end with a good and simple closing statement. AlbinoFerret 19:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

It was actually CFCF who opened a new section. I'm displeased about the way in which he did so, though its not a bad RfC framing per se. It misses what I see as the locus of disupute, which has more to do with the purpose of MEDRS. Happily, discussion has gone in that direction anyhow. Rhoark (talk) 20:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	In appreciation of your ongoing hard work in all aspects and areas of Wikipedia. It takes courage and determination to not shy away from difficult issues. Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. That's a very nice way of saying I'm binging on wikifights today. Rhoark (talk) 04:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hahaha! Sometimes it's necessary to spend a few days in the ring bloodying noses for Wikipedian "goodness and niceness instead of evil." Now that's a 'not the truth' that can hurt. Ouch! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Reading this RfC and it seems a little to broad in scope to get a consensus.Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#RfC:_What_claims_are_governed_by_WP:MEDRS.3F

The argument appears to revolve around is "health information" a part of "biomedical information". I think a simpler RfC around that one specific wording issue would be more useful. Your thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

In your post at AE, you suggested that one of the participants be placed under a 0RR. Can you tell me how you understand 0RR? That the person may not make any reverts at all? For example, if they rephrase a sentence for style, since it might remove existing words, it would count as a violation? The only edit guaranteed not to be a revert (under any interpretation) is one that adds brand-new material that has never been in the article before. Would you endorse that? EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@EdJohnston: I consider a reversion to be something that can be broadly construed as returning a page to a prior state. I do not interpret every possible change to another editor's text as "undoing" that editor's action. However, a reversion would also not only be verbatim; it might for instance be a close paraphrase of a prior state. It also depends on what is actually the point of contention, if any. A stylistic change might be construable as a reversion if style is at issue. In the case at hand, the issue is the question of whether a source is reliable enough for BLP claims. It's specifically in the context of restoring challenged BLP material that I endorse 0RR for the editor. Rhoark (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gamer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Escapist. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 20 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

It violates BLP. ForbiddenRocky (talk) 18:07, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Name a claim that violates BLP. Everything is cited to high-quality sources. Rhoark (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

	Merry Christmas!!
	Hello, I wish you and your family a Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia!      –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

• The same to you, happy holidays! :) starship.paint ~ KO 03:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

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 Arbitration enforcement 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t) 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)Reply

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration enforcement 2 case closed

 

 

Happy New Year!

Rhoark,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 11:46, 1 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

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

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article R v. Elliott is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R v. Elliott until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:22, 21 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Noticed you were making a draft of the whole shebang. Just letting you know that your draft so far is much more readable than what is currently in place. Keep up the good work. GamerPro64 21:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rhoark.

Your evidence as the above link does not fall within the limited scope of the case as described on the evidence page.

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.

As the evidence presented is not within this scope it has been removed.

This has been carried out as a clerk action and should not be reverted with permission from the Arbitration Committee.

Amortias (T)(C) 13:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

Your recent editing history at Vaxxed shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Your edits are going against the consensus both at the article talk page and at the RSN. Unless you can gain a consensus for this change, you should stop reverting other users' edits. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:30, 25 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why are you responding to me on Doug's talk page? Would you like it if you had to deal with two people arguing on your talk page?

You should have responded on my page or here, and pinged me, but don't clutter someone else's page by trying to turn it into another forum for argument.

For starters, when someone says something and you don't respond, that's ignoring it. Your reasons for ignoring it are irrelevant, and as you describe them on Doug's page, ignorant of the reasons I gave for keeping this (they're right there in the same comment, had you chosen to read and consider it before responding).

But I'll tell you what. You find me a case where "[famous musician] is a musician who..." or "[famous actor] is an actor who..." or more appropriately, [famous criminal] is a criminal who..." or something like that, where a well-documented and obvious fact about a person is stated in order to contribute to a related point, and then that statement was struck from an article because the sourcing for "<nowiki>[person] is an [obvious fact about them] wasn't good enough, and I'll concede the fact that this is how things are done around here by default. At which point, the only thing left for you to do is to convince me that WP is somehow liable for including that statement (not exactly impossible, but I honestly don't know how you'd do it considering the facts), and you'll win the entire argument. As I've explained before, your insistence that you're being misunderstood is wrong. I fully understand you. I just disagree with you.

if you had said as much on the talk page I would have seen a way forward other than AE Well, first off: I did. You even posted a link to the diff where I did, and complained because I did (hint: CRYBLP is a form of wikilawyering). Second... Dunno if you've been paying attention or not, but the AE case isn't going the way you apparently expected it to. That tends to happen when you admit to starting a disagreement in order to teach someone a lesson. Not to mention the fact that you've guaranteed by your behavior that I'll never again respect you enough to take your advice as anything other than the complaints of an offended 20-something. So you've kind of shot yourself in the foot, there. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:08, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@MjolnirPants: I replied where you were talking about me. Here is fine too. I'm trying to find common ground by which we can end this dispute, in which we have both misunderstood each other. Your points were not clear to me until you presented them to a third party you had not already pigeonholed as a fringe POV-pusher. I do not think you have understood my points either, despite your protestations that you do. I think what you most need to confront at this point is that the things you asked for as a compromise were delivered, or more accurately, never in jeopardy. The article clearly says that Andrew Wakefield is discredited, that the movie is propaganda, and that there is no link between autism and vaccines. I would not have it any other way. Your reading of the situation, that I started the disagreement to teach someone a lesson, is uncharitable. The disagreement preceded my involvement, and I hoped that by my involvement I could prompt not only article improvement but personal growth. You might find that arrogant and disrespect me as a result, but that's an outcome I can live with. Rhoark (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Your reading of the situation, that I started the disagreement to teach someone a lesson, is uncharitable. Wrong. It may be discrediting to you, but you can't call it uncharitable, because it's based on your own claims. You directly stated that your primary interest was in teaching me a lesson, more than once. The fact that you worded it a different way (only by spelling out what 'lesson' you intended to teach me) doesn't change that.

You might find that arrogant and disrespect me as a result, but that's an outcome I can live with. Allow me to (attempt to) teach you a lesson then: Going around assuming you know better and that you can teach random people how to be better is arrogant. When you attempt this by starting an argument with someone who represents a broad consensus, ignoring their attempts to settle it, misunderstanding most of what they're saying (or claiming to, anyways) and claiming they're misunderstanding you (despite them demonstrating repeatedly that they're not), it's not only arrogant, but also pretty incompetent. I'm not trying to insult you. Just take a step back, and think about the following hypothetical for a second.

Imagine I show up one day at Halotherapy and reverted this edit of yours, because it had to lower the bar for inclusion to get enough studies to review. You respond that the lowered bar was still perfectly fine. I respond that I read the review and it included case reports and animal testing (it doesn't, but for the sake of this hypothetical, let us assume it does), while WP:MEDRS says we can't rely on animal studies and case reports. You argue that yes, they were included in the review, but given little weight, and it's easy to see that the results excluding them were functionally the same as the results including them. I respond by claiming that you're not understanding me and MEDRS is very clear. I keep reverting your edit, while you and several others keep re-inserting it. Then I file an AE case against you, where I state clearly that the reason I went to that article in the first place was because I thought you were biased and acting like you owned the article, and I wanted to teach you how to edit properly.

Now imagine I did all of this after an editor who'd been contesting that edit was topic banned because of that same argument.

Do you see where I'm coming from? Do you see why the admin at AE has already stated he doesn't intend to sanction me, but is still deciding whether or not to sanction you? You seem think I have this knee-jerk skepticism bias and I'm cracking down on any possible fringe POV I see with way too much zeal, but that's demonstrably wrong. The lesson you're trying to teach me is one I learned years ago. Right now, this situation is a learning opportunity for you. I'd rather you did learn, but I'm here to edit an encyclopedia, not to teach you. It's on you to make that happen.

Finally, I think we're done here. As I said, I'm here to edit, not to engage in personal squabbles with people who apparently just don't like the cut of my chin. You may respond, of course, but don't expect me to. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm certainly arrogant. It's one of my more endearing qualities. The hypotheticals about Halotherapy aren't instructive, as neither of us would present those lines of argument. Nevertheless, this actual experience could not fail to be instructive for me as well, in terms of how editors might react to certain lines of argument. (As an aside, in your hypothetical case I would emphasize that MEDRS has no bright lines not found in WP:V and is primarily meant to avoid Wikipedia improperly becoming a source of personal medical advice. If that failed to gain consensus, I would be open to re-scoping the claim to emphasize the inadequacy of the evidence rather than the conclusions.) Rhoark (talk) 15:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Moving this here per AE limits... Jytdog (talk) 04:49, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

To get this rolling, please tell me what objections you are hearing. Thx. Jytdog (talk) 04:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sure. The criticisms I see in your statement are:

• Since TeeVeeed was rightly topic banned, my questioning of that ban indicates impaired judgement.

What clinched TeeVeeed's ban was the statement he was going to "continue to troll", which was made out of exasperation. I can recognize that he dug his own grave while also recognizing it would not have come to that point had you and MjolnirPants been more cooperative about his valid objections.

• POINTY, playing "gotcha", wasting time, etc.

If someone can read a loony blog and it points to a valid criticism of our Wikipedia article, that's worthwhile to fix. It's closing a vulnerability. If editors circle the wagons because a valid criticism came from the wrong kind of people, that's also a problem that's worthwhile to fix. Had I guilelessly edited the page to look exactly like its present revision, I doubt it would have stood. If any time has been wasted, it's been wasted in overcoming unnecessary resistance. It is only to my credit that I anticipated editors' behavior; they still behaved that way on their own initiative.

• Gamergate, QED.

As a new editor, jumping into something so contentious was a trial by fire. I wasn't perfect to start, but my editing was improved by the experience. I was not unfamiliar with you before this case, and have in fact heard more than one person imply your pseudoscience editing shows the same patterns of behavior that got you in hot water about GMOs. Building your case against me on the basis of righting great wrongs and irrelevant year-old edits, while considering my mention of your relevant sanction to be underhanded, should illustrate that you may not yet be as reformed as you think you are. That's what I wanted you to see, before someone raises the issue with actual intent to get you sanctioned. Consider it analogous to a vaccination.

Rhoark (talk) 15:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for replying. You are personalizing this; other people have raised criticisms too, and the admin was on the fence about a boomerang even before I commented. I came here to talk. If you want interpersonal combat, I am not interested in that. So let me ask again - what objections are you hearing at the AE? Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Jytdog: I have not personalized anything beyond what is called for by identifying how a conflict among people involves those people. You're among those people, and not only because of your latest AE comments. You wanted to know my perception of your comments, and I told you. Are you asking for me to summarize everyone's statements? Rhoark (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am telling you that my question was directly broadly to the objections that were raised to your AE post and your behavior at the article; those issues were causing the admin to lean toward a boomerang. You either understand why that is the developing consensus or you don't. If you do there is no need for further action. If you don't, I will continue to advocate for a TBAN. I am giving you the opportunity to tell me that you understand what the issues are. You can take me up on that, or not. Jytdog (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

The issues are what I have said they are. The Wordsmith has not elaborated on their thoughts, and I know them to be a cautious admin. Others have asked for a boomerang because they believe the numerical count of reversions is central to the dispute, they are angered by my holistic approach to editors as well as content in a dispute, they have an emotional investment in the topic of vaccines, or have followed me from other topics. If you want to press the case, that is your prerogative. Rhoark (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

In the recent AE request you filed, I have come to the following decision:

Rhoark is cautioned that further enforcement requests without solid evidence of wrongdoing will not engender leniency. Creating frivolous complaints often results in quick sanctions. MjolnirPants is advised that upholding Wikipedia's policies on Pseudoscience is not an exemption from civility.

If you wish to appeal this decision you may do so to me on my Talk page, through Arbitration Enforcement, Administrator's Noticeboard, or to the Arbitration Committee. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:04, 27 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Some of the information on ethniccelebs is accurate. It stated that actor, Jacob artist has a Black father and polish mother, and that turned out to be true, from other source. It also stated that naya Rivera is of Bl‍‌‌‌‌‍‍‍‌‍‌ack, German and Puerto Rican descent, which also turned out to be true. Its a lot of people who can have a Black grandparent and creole grandparent, and still look fully white, shailene's father is white, and her mother is creole and black, it's accurate. Jessica lucas also stated her mom and dad are white and black, in an interview and that was true to the website, I know not everything may be accurate, but those three are, so it's fair that they are added to each of their articles, it's not easy trying to find source all the time. Zhyboo (talk) 21:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Zhyboo: Read through Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth Rhoark (talk) 21:56, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Zhyboo: You are really pushing my buttons. I have told you, and you are being told again, that EthniCelebs is not reliable regardless it may have accurate information or not. I told you that if you had issues with this to consult a noticeboard, not go on to get your way by informing users about this, which consists of WP:CANVASS which is a policy. Please read what Rhoark has directed to you as well as WP:RELIABLE. Now, I suggest that you either take it to a noticeboard or you drop the stick. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

(talk page watcher) @Zhyboo:, I am reminded of the phrase "even a stopped clock is right twice a day". - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)Reply

Can I get a link to the blog post that you mentioned (but left redacted) from the Arbcom case you've opened? I am being asked for it, and I don't know precisely which one, and I've little desire to wade through his muck. --Jorm (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

In his latest post, dated June 24, he says:

I recently wrote a draft article about a Wikipedia official who had failed to enforce Wikipedia’s child protection. I contacted the subject for comment along with other interested parties in line with ethical practices. The official did not deny the allegations but instead resigned. Bernstein claims this was, ‘blackmail’.

Rhoark (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

(Since some feel my position is unclear, I'll clarify that I do not agree with Vordrak / Sam Smith's framing of the issue. In particular I am not convinced of any actual failure to follow child protection policy.) Rhoark (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I certainly understood your position, so no worries on my end. I alerted someone in WMF Legal last evening (a real person, not just an on-wiki ping). I noticed the case has been pulled and redacted, though. I expect it's now Extremely Radioactive.--Jorm (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes. I'm no expert on ArbCom, but removing the filing without any public vote or statement, or even the typical form letter to participants seems highly irregular. I hold a slim hope that this is part of a plan from Legal rather than just the committee sweeping it under a rug. Rhoark (talk) 18:12, 26 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dude, this is so much worse and deeper than it appears. --Jorm (talk) 02:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is that a fact? It didn't look good to start with, but WMF was willing to take the NSA to court, so this should be small potatoes. Rhoark (talk) 02:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

I don't know how many specifics you're privy to. It's brutally bad, though. I've mixed emotions.--Jorm (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Everything I know is in the open. I just saw enough smoke to yell "fire". Rhoark (talk) 03:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

It's more like Wildfire. I'm sure everything will be public soon enough. --Jorm (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, Rhoark. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Rhoark (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Reply

You were added to a mass-message list because of your displayed interest in this case. The Arbitration Committee will periodically inform you of the status of this case so long as your username remains on this list.

You were recently listed as a party to and/or commented on a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 25, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 17:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just saw the closed discussion you were having on the Fringe Theories Notice Board; and wanted to point out that in Repressive Tolerance Marcuse is specifically talking about a society in which fascism already exists; and more specifically about a society which is losing democracy and freespeech. He puts it thus:

"Surely, no government can be expected to foster its own subversion, but in a democracy such a right is vested in the people (i.e. in the majority of the people). This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means" -Marcuse, Repressive Tolerance, 1965.

He actually starts out that section talking about exactly how a seemingly democratic state can veer into creating ugly, exploitative and destructive behavior:

"Democracy is a form of government which fits very different types of society (this holds true even for a democracy with universal suffrage and equality before the law), and the human costs of a democracy are always and everywhere those exacted by the society whose government it is. Their range extends all the way from normal exploitation, poverty, and insecurity to the victims of wars, police actions, military aid, etc., in which the society is engaged--and not only to the victims within its own frontiers. These considerations can never justify the exacting of different sacrifices and different victims on behalf of a future better society, but they do allow weighing the costs involved in the perpetuation of an existing society against the risk of promoting alternatives which offer a reasonable chance of pacification and liberation." -Marcuse, Repressive Tolerance, 1965.

As always when discussing these guys; it's important to remember their context as having fled the Nazi regime as it informs much of what they're saying. In short; I don't accept your claim that they were somehow trying to take over society. They were in fact; attempting to make sure fascism would not rise again, and that people were aware of their own power in stopping it. --Jobrot (talk) 03:25, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm not interested so much in whether their intentions were noble. I was just trying to get people to confront the cognitive dissonance it takes to say its a conspiracy theory to quote things that are plainly written in these philosophers' published works. Rhoark (talk) 03:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Well clearly (from my above example) what you think is plainly written in these works and what I think is plainly written in these works differs substantially. I don't believe there's any cognitive dissonance required to see that Marcuse is in support of a democracy for and by the people, in which the people are responsible for keeping the social and structural means of democratic speech and behavior open, as that's exactly what he's saying in the above text. --Jobrot (talk) 03:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

He's saying there are people and ideas too inimical to democracy to allow them to participate in democracy. Rhoark (talk) 03:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

No, he's saying that a protest blocking a roadway, or causing a disturbance may seem like "apparently undemocratic means" but that's what it can take to cause a "reopening" of a "democracy" that is "vested in [the rights of] the people (i.e. in the majority of the people)". If you're going to make a claim; you should back it up from the source-text. Otherwise it's mere opinion.

That said; the consideration of a holocaust is probably an idea too inimical to democracy to allow proponents to participate in democracy as you put it. I personally don't think it's unreasonable to outlaw the advocacy of a crimes such as genocide. Generally advocating violence and crimes that are beyond the realm of civil/political disobedience, is illegal in modern western societies. --Jobrot (talk) 04:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

That's one thing, but how about making it illegal to oppose medicare expansion?

This means that the ways should not be blocked on which a subversive majority could develop, and if they are blocked by organized repression and indoctrination, their reopening may require apparently undemocratic means. They would include the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc. Moreover, the restoration of freedom of thought may necessitate new and rigid restrictions on teachings and practices in the educational institutions which, by their very methods and concepts, serve to enclose the mind within the established universe of discourse and behavior--thereby precluding a priori a rational evaluation of the alternatives. And to the degree to which freedom of thought involves the struggle against inhumanity, restoration of such freedom would also imply intolerance toward scientific research in the interest of deadly 'deterrents', of abnormal human endurance under inhuman conditions, etc.

And how would the bounds of acceptable discourse be set, if not democratically? By the few humans Marcuse deems to be not to stupid for the task.

The question, who is qualified to make all these distinctions, definitions, identifications for the society as a whole, has now one logical answer, namely, everyone 'in the maturity of his faculties' as a human being, everyone who has learned to think rationally and autonomously. The answer to Plato's educational dictatorship is the democratic educational dictatorship of free men. John Stuart Mill's conception of the res publica is not the opposite of Plato's: the liberal too demands the authority of Reason not only as an intellectual but also as a political power. In Plato, rationality is confined to the small number of philosopher-kings; in Mill, every rational human being participates in the discussion and decision--but only as a rational being. Where society has entered the phase of total administration and indoctrination, this would be a small number indeed, and not necessarily that of the elected representatives of the people. The problem is not that of an educational dictatorship, but that of breaking the tyranny of public opinion and its makers in the closed society.

If someone read that while dressed like a lobster or something he might be mistaken for Nick Land. Rhoark (talk) 04:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Yes, one is free to protest the expansion of medicare (even though blocking roadways and causing a disturbance may seem like an undemocratic means of doing so), and yes an educated society is a good thing. However, I don't think that the expansion of medicare is comparable by any reasonable standards to advocating a holocaust. Ergo the protesting of medicare via civil disobedience is probably not going to be outlawed anytime soon (where as advocacy of racial genocide can most definitely land you in legal trouble).

The phrase "'x' is white genocide" (where x is often 'diversity' but can be anything from race mixing, to pornography) comes to mind. I don't know if you've heard of this popular far-right meme, but if you google "is white genocide" it's fairly easy to find people claiming all sorts of indirect phenomena can now constitute genocide. In my view Wikipedia should not support such irrational statements as if they're factual; as it breaks the very definition of words; in this case of 'genocide'. So one has to use reason in consideration of these complex philosophical ideas, and avoid the knee-jerk reaction as Wikipedia is not about such a superficial (knee-jerk/WP:UNDUE) exploration of ideas; but is instead about the deep exploration of ideas based on facts, reasonable consensus and proper sourcing. --Jobrot (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Also it should be noted that when Marcuse talks of "withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies..." he's talking of doing so via constituent power (of the people), not legal power or state censorship The Frankfurt School were as I've said; anti-fascists and historically opposed to totalitarian states... and of course as Marcuse says "rational evaluation of the alternatives" should never be precluded by an education system doing so would be the threshold between education and indoctrination. As the text alludes to, Marcuse was a supporter of restoring and maintaining "freedom of thought" against forms of fascism which would seek to deny such. --Jobrot (talk) 07:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the multiple replies to this complex text, but I'd also like to point out that here: "intolerance toward scientific research in the interest of deadly 'deterrents', of abnormal human endurance under inhuman conditions, etc." I believe Marcuse is talking about not tolerating things like the Nazi death camps. Which again seems like a fair and reasonable thing for a society to not tolerate. I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable if a politician were researching that sort of thing. Those who wish to improve the efficacy of "deadly 'deterrents'," or shorten "human endurance under inhuman conditions" - as was the Nazi interest (see Nazi human experimentation); should not be tolerated by our, or any society. Not even in the name of science. You've got to remember that Marcuse helped develop the Nuremberg Trials so learned about this sort of thing pretty directly, and that the creation of ethics boards (which were still developing their limits and morality during 1965 when this essay was written) was in part a response to the Nazi human experimentation.

Main article: Institutional_review_board § United_States_mandate_for_IRBs

Formal review procedures for institutional human subject studies were originally developed in direct response to research abuses in the 20th century. Among the most notorious of these abuses were the experiments of Nazi physicians, which became a focus of the post-World War II Doctors' Trial, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, a long-term project conducted between 1932 and 1972 by the U.S. Public Health Service, and numerous human radiation experiments conducted during the Cold War. Other controversial U.S. projects undertaken during this era include the Milgram obedience experiment, the Stanford prison experiment, and Project MKULTRA, a series of classified mind control studies organized by the CIA.

Again sorry for this lengthy explanation and clarification. I hope you understand a bit more about where The Frankfurt School were coming from now. --Jobrot (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

All of this is really tangential to my point, which is that Marcuse wrote these things, so when conservatives read it and say, "Marcuse wrote these things", that's not a paranoid conspiracy theory. He did, in fact, write these things. Rhoark (talk) 14:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Sure if they say; Marcuse wrote this; and then give a Marcuse quote - then no; that's not a conspiracy theory in of it's self. However if they say; Marcuse wrote this - and therefore was attempting to destroy America; that would be a conspiracy theory. It's always important to fact check statements. --Jobrot (talk) 15:17, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

For instance, if they claim The Frankfurt School was a satanic plot to destroy America or claim that The Frankfurt School controlled Hollywood then yeah; that's conspiracy theory territory. --Jobrot (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I just read the Draft:Gamergate_controversy page, which I assumed was mostly written by you. Since I am not eligible to post on the Talk page, I'd like to submit my feedback here.

I was previously slightly biased towards the "pro-Gamergate" side of the issue, and thus very unsatisfied of the current form of the Gamergate page, which I feel is way too centered on the assumption that Gamergate is a group aiming to harass women and make video games a white male thing.

I feel that your article has a much more factual description of the controversy, with many descriptions of events and few descriptions of intentions. I think that removing most of the subtitles of the photos in favor of short descriptions was a good idea. I really appreciate the clean lead, which I feel is a very well written, concise and nicely symmetrical summary of the issue. However, I feel some of this symmetry/neutrality is lost in the body of the article, though, which seems to give criticism of Gamergate a lot less weight than they have in most coverage of the controversy.

To be precise, I think that criticism of the movement should be gathered in a section, instead of spread around the article, and given more weight as a legitimate opposition. Right now the article mostly follows a "Gamergate's POV >> Anti-Gamergate's POV >> Gamergate's answers to Anti-Gamergate POV" flow, which breaks neutrality by making anti-gamergate complaints seem unreasonable. The original article has the exact same problem, with the sides reversed. I think a fair, neutral coverage of the controversy would include at least one big "Criticisms" section with everything people said was bad about the movement, and minimal inclusion of the movement's answers to these criticisms.

Finally, I think you might want to find some statistics about Gamegate-related harassment by gender and put them in the "Individual Harassment" section; I think that is both relevant to the subject and something you'll need to quote if you want to defend the "men and women were harassed" point as being both technically accurate and legitimately representative of the situation.

Good job taking a long, complicated and loaded issue and making a comprehensive and mostly neutral article about it, that was probably laborious. I hope it gets accepted eventually.

Olivier FAURE - 81.249.92.137 (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, this is some very constructive critcism. There probably is a pattern in the article where anti-GG takes an unreasonable position and GG gets the last word, since that's a common pattern in the unfolding of the controversy. The CJR piece about AirPlay touches a bit on how there's a conscious tactic of not engaging when GG is at its most reasonable. There are some cases where an anti- position does get the last word, for example the chilling effects of targeting advertisers, hypocrisy in cultural libertarianism, and that harassment is unjustified even if there were ethical breaches.

There's more weight in RS's to negative opinions, but I don't see how to implement it. As far as the content of negative opinions, I think its all there: misogyny, ethics is just a pretense, coordinated by 4chan, chilling effects on journalists. Adding more would be reiterating these points or quoting unencyclopedic vituperation. If there other points that should be made, that's where I'm most in need of those editors with a strong animus against Gamergate to say what those additions should be.

One way in which weight cannot be implemented is by distorting the facts. For example, regardless of how many sources ignore harassment against GG, there are enough to establish fact that harassment goes both ways. There are seven citations for ant-GG harassment as a general phenomenon, plus more for specific incidents. It would be great if there were a rigorous quantitative study of this, but I don't know of one. Rhoark (talk) 15:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

You claim "GG is criticized then gets the last word because the criticism were unreasonable", but I doubt it (I'm treating GG and GG opponents as two persons for simplification here). The obvious alternative for any argument X is that GG opponents posted X criticizing GG, then GG posted !X refuting X, then GG opponents posted !!X refuting !X, etc, and you heard about X and !X but not !!X. Always citing your opposition's arguments immediately before your side's refutations is an easy way to make your opposition's arguments look weak regardless of their validity. Again, the original article does it too to make GG appear unreasonable. But if the opposition is unreasonable... I still think neutrality means steelmanning their arguments, and that includes formatting them in a way that makes them look strong. I think the "Gamergate as a movement" section is already mostly there: it's somewhat balanced between GG's description of themselves and the POV of its critics.

Anyway, I don't think the content of the draft should be changed much. Like you said, the negative opinions are already there, I just think they are too diluted and should be gathered in one category, maybe with some duplicating. As for the harassment part, I haven't followed the scandal, so I don't know if the examples posted are representative of what really happened. It does seem like the most "vulnerable" part of the article. Because anyone can argue their group was victim of more harassment, and should be represented more in the "Further Incidents" part. I can easily imagine this page being "vandalized" with people adding people of their group or removing people of the opposite group to skew the weight of the section, and I can just as easily see someone accuse the section of being badly weighted right now. Not sure how you could get an objective guideline, or a good compromise there. Olivier FAURE 81.249.92.137 (talk) 16:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm saying something a little different, which is that the thread of the conversation tends to end with a pro-GG perspective because pro-GG will sealion to the nth degree while the anti-GG side will either stop responding entirely or reset to top-level claims ("It's just harrassment"). Steelmanning, as you put it, may be the way to go. I'm wary of a criticism section that doesn't stay anchored in a particular facet of the controversy, as it could easily degenerate again into a blob of claims. Rhoark (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

@81.249.92.137: You can give comments at User_talk:Rhoark/sandbox/Gamergate_controversy as well: IPs are allowed to edit the page. The draft which you see is actually a copy paste from the sandbox page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 20:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

I will take a look. Koncorde (talk) 17:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi Rhoark. Thank you for your detailed closes at WP:ANRFC! Your hard work in explaining your closes in detail is very appreciated. Cunard (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I just try to follow the example of closes I've seen. Rhoark (talk) 16:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hey, Rhoark. Regarding this, I want you to know that I don't actually consider your closure a bad closure. It's just that, given our past interactions, I would feel more comfortable if another editor closed that discussion. I think you maybe tried to be neutral when closing, but I'm not yet ready to think of you as a neutral editor when it comes to opinions on me or disputes I'm involved in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

I replied at the noticeboard to keep things consolidated. Rhoark (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

If it was in the past, it certainly isn't now. 2601:640:8001:D700:A409:25C8:61B7:DA18 (talk) 16:01, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Is this apropos anything? Rhoark (talk) 18:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Draft:Gamergate controversy page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

One piece of advice: keep in mind WP:BLUDGEON. It's usually better to watch the process unfold from a distance rather than replying to the many points raised. If necessary, wait a few days and reply to the major points all at once in a separate comment. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 08:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Roark. I figured there was some level of conflict of interest, but I was not aware of the details. That's honestly why I made no attempt to hide the fact that I'm GyroVorbis, because I was hoping people would see that my edits were in fact completely founded despite my conflict of interests and that I had nothing to hide. When that page was started, several people had to slave away getting it up to Wikipedia's standards. Now it has been completely adulterated by people with zero respect for the rules of Wikipedia, who aren't citing valid sources, and who aren't even citing sources at all half the time. Lots of that content was just plain wrong. I waited very patiently for someone to come back and correct it, but nobody ever did. Please feel free to look back over my modifications and revert them if they're unfounded, but I wholeheartedly believe that you will find that they are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GyroVorbis (talk • contribs) 17:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)Reply

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Michael Hardy is reminded that:
   1. Administrators are expected to set an example with their behavior, including refraining from incivility and responding patiently to good-faith concerns about their conduct, even when those concerns are expressed suboptimally.
   2. All administrators are expected to keep their knowledge of core policies reasonably up to date.
   3. Further misconduct using the administrative tools will result in sanctions.
2. MjolnirPants is reminded to use tactics that are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the 4th Pillar when dealing with other users they are in dispute with.
3. The Arbitration Committee is reminded to carefully consider the appropriate scope of future case requests. The committee should limit "scope creep" and focus on specific items that are within the scope of the duties and responsibilities outlined in Arbitration Policy.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed

A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

An Arbitration Enforcement case[5] in which you participated has been closed with the following result:

All parties are cautioned that further breaches in civility occurring after this date in the PIA topic area will be be met with swift action at a lower threshold than has traditionally been the case. Parties are urged to spend some time reflecting inwardly on their own conduct, and whether it is truly appropriate for an online encyclopedia. No further action is taken at this time. The parties are advised to chill. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:58, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

seeing and solving issues

 

Thank you for solving issues from the start, for helping projects and giving advice on noticeboards, for a statement of wisdom, for defining yourself by a good (related) quote alone, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you, that's very gratifying. Rhoark (talk) 13:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1488 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Two years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 00:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)Reply

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration motion regarding GamerGate

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Colonization of Mars page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I'm writing because you recently suggested edits to the sexism in video gaming page. I've just added a talk note that one study, the Italian one of 154 teens, now has a reanalaysis that challenges that study. The wikipedia page doesn't include this though. Could you look at my suggestion and indicate whether you agree or disagree with it? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.236.134 (talk) 12:48, 2 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, there is an RM discussion you may be interested in since you have participated in the past:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chairman#Requested_move_22_March_2019

Any input would be appreciated. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Gallic acid. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Zefr (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Zefr: You're free to disagree, but I found it pertinent. Rhoark (talk) 20:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

I get the similarity of gallic acid with the scientific name for chicken, but - read your edit again - it was an odd linkage and unsourced. Willing to agree if there is sufficient evidence to include it by a WP:SCIRS source from the chicken literature. --Zefr (talk) 21:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)Reply