Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:47, 8 November 2015

• /Archive 1 Created May 1. 2006
• /Archive 2 Created August 24, 2006
• /Archive 3 Created September 30, 2006
• /Archive 4 Created November 19, 2006
• /Archive 5 Created 05:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
• /Archive 6 Created 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
• /Archive 7 Created 04:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
• /Archive 08 Created 01:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
• /Archive 09 Created 05:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• /Archive 10 Created --DHeyward (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
• /Archive 11 created --DHeyward (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
• /Archive 12 created --DHeyward (talk) 09:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• /Archive 13
• /Archive 14
• /Archive 15
• /Archive 16
• /Archive 17

Please add comments to the bottom

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. DHeyward (talk)

Revisiting MOS:IDENTITY on transgender individuals in articles about themselves and in passing in other articles

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Misplaced Pages's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

A beer for you!

For your great input at UCC shooting/talk. ...Checkingfax ( Talk ) 02:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

− Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Samsara 19:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the beer getting deleted - that was not intentional. Samsara 19:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Gone

I'm leaving the Clock Boy incident article. In short, I'm doing so because I'm sick of contributing good edits that just get reverted or obliterated; I'm sick of the snide edit summaries left after those competing edits are made. I'm sick of the article ownership. I left my final word there at the talk page here. You, I've enjoyed editing with. The other regulars, not at all. See you elsewhere, I'm sure. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Policy on living persons at Talk:Cecil (lion)

I've posted about an issue here in which you are involved. Samsara 15:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages: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, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration evidence

Hi DHeyward,

Your section on the evidence page has been moved to the evidence talk page as it does not meet the requirements for inclusion as evidence. This has been undertaken as a clerk action and should not be reverted.

For the Arbitration Comittee. Amortias (T)(C) 12:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Depression Quest

Please stop edit warring at Depression Quest. As the one introducing challenged material, the burden of evidence is on you to defend it on the talk page.--Cúchullain /c 04:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the ] or ]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:28, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" ). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Well...admins who block and then disappear don't have to be accountable for their actions...and when other assholes hat off inquiring efforts as to the issues then we know were living in a totalitarian shithole which would make Stalin proud. I'm about done here. The arbcom committee lies and makes up cases and when you inform them you defended then against sexual harassment, they are so self absorbed they don't even notice. SPAs waste enormous time and energy and nothing can be done about then unless they make a death threat. I make like zero bucks yet have invested thousands of my own dollars to keep this website profitable...the crassness and rudeness is intolerable. Few editors out there can write worth a shit...no research skills...no writing skills...even their arguments are insane. Fuck it....I'm taking a break.--MONGO 00:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@NE Ent: I did appeal. Directly to Gamaliel when he took AE action by deleting the post and saying he would not block as long as I didn't repost it. I didn't repost it. That's in Email at his request to keep drama down. I sent HJ Mitchell an email describing Gamaliel's "No AE Action" deletion as he blocked 2 hours after Gamaliel's delete with "no action" on AE enforcement. That he let you close the ANI as out of process is rather sad. He asked that it not create drama so I didn't do anything that would bring attention here. I also emailed ArbCom. Please reopen it until it's resolved. I removed the formal unblock request because of "drama" but it's apparent that drama is what the admins want instead of just unblocking. Mitchell and Gamaliel are both involved admins anyway with Mitchell's previous block being overturned at AN and my history with Gamaliel is 10 years old and he is so involved that he's banned me from his talk page. The same show up, block, non-respond is the pattern we see. Let's not forget the tweet that it is I that am being driven to a low profile, been lied about and attempted doxing. I only point out the pot was calling the kettle black and only a very few would understand the reference to the tweet (i.e. followers of MarkBernstein). This is a serious abuse of admin tools and it's gone on long enough. --DHeyward (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

to be clear, Mitchell is unaware that his block is out of process. He is not aware that Gamaliel deleted the edit, emailed me about his "No Action" regarding AE enforcement (I have the email). Mitchell effectively undid Gamaliel's AE admin action by blocking. Identical to AE 1 and contrary to its final decision about process. --DHeyward (talk) 01:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

DHeyward (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Please copy my appeal to the ]. HJ Mitchell was unaware that Gamaliel deleted and then emailed me regarding his "No AE Action" if I didn't repost the deleted material. That is an AE action according the AE 1. Gamaliel had already dealt with it, removed the material snd made a warning that closed the issue. Two hours later, Mitchell issues a block with no indication of how he was made aware of deleted posts, no discussions, no warnings or communication. Mitchell has already had a block overturned and has not responded to email requests for explanation. The deleted material should be viewed by admins that can see deleted material for a violation. Unless admins follow a certain twitter user, the tweet in question and its author are not identifiable. Furthermore, it's not false as the tweet made false accusations, was intimidating as a doxing threat and designed to "lower my profile." ] (]) 01:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Also note that the ] consciousness of guilt seems to have moved certain parties to delete the offensive tweets. Sunlight is a good disinfectant. --] (]) 01:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please copy my appeal to the ]. HJ Mitchell was unaware that Gamaliel deleted and then emailed me regarding his "No AE Action" if I didn't repost the deleted material. That is an AE action according the AE 1. Gamaliel had already dealt with it, removed the material snd made a warning that closed the issue. Two hours later, Mitchell issues a block with no indication of how he was made aware of deleted posts, no discussions, no warnings or communication. Mitchell has already had a block overturned and has not responded to email requests for explanation. The deleted material should be viewed by admins that can see deleted material for a violation. Unless admins follow a certain twitter user, the tweet in question and its author are not identifiable. Furthermore, it's not false as the tweet made false accusations, was intimidating as a doxing threat and designed to "lower my profile." ] (]) 01:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Also note that the ] consciousness of guilt seems to have moved certain parties to delete the offensive tweets. Sunlight is a good disinfectant. --] (]) 01:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Please copy my appeal to the ]. HJ Mitchell was unaware that Gamaliel deleted and then emailed me regarding his "No AE Action" if I didn't repost the deleted material. That is an AE action according the AE 1. Gamaliel had already dealt with it, removed the material snd made a warning that closed the issue. Two hours later, Mitchell issues a block with no indication of how he was made aware of deleted posts, no discussions, no warnings or communication. Mitchell has already had a block overturned and has not responded to email requests for explanation. The deleted material should be viewed by admins that can see deleted material for a violation. Unless admins follow a certain twitter user, the tweet in question and its author are not identifiable. Furthermore, it's not false as the tweet made false accusations, was intimidating as a doxing threat and designed to "lower my profile." ] (]) 01:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Also note that the ] consciousness of guilt seems to have moved certain parties to delete the offensive tweets. Sunlight is a good disinfectant. --] (]) 01:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

@HighInBC: Gamaliel had already addressed it as an AE case and said "No action" if I didn't repost the material in an email two hours before Mitchell took action. That's a clear AE action that Mitchell undid. How Mitchell, who has already had a block of mine overturned at AE became aware of deleted edits, related them to a noticeboard ban regarding another editor and took action without reviewing that it had already been dealt with by the admin that imposed the topic ban deserves scrutiny. Why me, why then, why a deleted edit, and why after the sanction implmenting admin declined action deserves scrutiny. AE 1 ArbCom case clearly states that admin closures with no admin action are AE actions. Mitchell undid this and acted out of process by blocking after the original admin dealt with it. It's an out of process block and Mitchell is once again absent to address this, just as he was absent in his first block which was overturned at AN. I don't care to know why he unblocked MarkBernstein out of process by undoing Kww's block or why he hsa found it necessary to block me with specious reasons for hte second time. He just needs a new hobby. Also, someone needs to review the reasoning for deleting my edits under BLP grounds. Nothing I said was false nor was a living person identifiable unless they were twitter fans of that person (which makes them involved but still not a BLP violation as they know the tweets occurred.). --DHeyward (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe you DHeyward, but the corruption of the admin corps is so deep and extensive that there is almost nothing to be done. Look no farther than the current discussion at ANI where the worst admins on Misplaced Pages are protecting their fellow corrupt admins, doing everything in their power to keep corrupt admins from being blocked. It's been this way for a while now. I hope you'll join me and others in removing this continued threat by promoting the complete and total dissolution of the RFA process followed by the distributed debundling of the toolset, concluding with mass desysopping on par with the French Revolution. You and I know that the majority of hat collectors, power mongers, and bureaucracy lovers are here only to promote their own interests, and actively use Misplaced Pages to fluff up their personal resumes and retain jobs they aren't the least qualified to hold. Let's at least be honest about what we are up against: the blindingly mediocre, the weak of heart and mind, and the spineless, asslicking, unquestioning and obedient, cranial rectal inverted policy pimps of the Internet. Viriditas (talk) 04:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Meh...do people really brag about being Wikipedians on their resumes or LinkedIn? Even if I was known as Mr. Sweetness and all my articles were about butterflies and dessert recipes and I never disagreed with anyone...I still wouldn't think being a wikipedian would help me with my career.--MONGO 07:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

@Liz: I believe you've already declared being involved in GamerGate topic and my block is a GamerGate sanction. Please clarify that you are commenting as an involved admin at AN. --DHeyward (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Its my opinion that HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) should step away from administrating this website. The restrictions between yourself and MB are apparently unilateral, so to me that means all interaction and requests for arbcom sanctions which should, if it doesn't, include email requests for action. I assume Gamaliel posted those bans to referee the two of you from battleground interactions. When an administrator responds with a block based on a complaint from either party via any channel (my version since I would hope that not being able to do so onsite would also mean that doing so via email would also be verboten) then there should be a question mark for us all as to how far trust should be when we have such things as discretionary sanctions.--MONGO 20:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Modification of restrictions

A few fellow administrators have objected to the way HJ Mitchell and I have dealt with the recent dispute between you and MarkBernstein. MarkBernstein also seems to have launched a quixotic novelty campaign for ArbCom today. Given both of these facts, I no longer wish to be the intermediary between you two, nor do I wish to continue to be blamed by both of you and by third parties whenever one of you does something that someone does not like. I am lifting the restriction on opening enforcement requests against each other, so other administrators can bring a fresh perspective to this long-lasting dispute. The topic ban on discussing one another otherwise remains in place. Please bring any requests or disputes regarding each other or Gamergate to WP:AE and not to my talk page or my inbox. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 22:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock