Archives

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

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

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Female genital mutilation. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So MjolnirPants are you now ready to take your proposed edit to the article Talk page instead of reverting it back in? Zad68 17:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should check the talk page before spamming warning templates for behavior you subsequently engage in. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you started a Talk page discussion here: Talk:Cannabis_(drug)#Cannabis_fatalities, I have already replied there, happy to continue this there. Zad68 17:49, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I arrived at the Morgellons article from elsewhere, looking for the origin of the name, and after wasting 5 minutes, finally found it buried in the middle of the "History" section. I'd normally expect terminology to be defined early in an article or a section, but in this case the contributor decided to make it hard on the reader. Apparently you like to inflict the same hardship. — Quicksilver^{T @} 17:45, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hydrargyrum how about this? Zad68 17:57, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's better. Thank you. — Quicksilver^{T @} 18:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yes thanks trout71 I realized after I hit save the problem with my comment, no worries. Zad68 20:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zad why can't Admins unblock themselves on this wiki. You can on others. Only the buerocrats can't, balance of power and that. I am rather surprised by it. Trout 71 20:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

trout71 well it's possible that an admin can turn against the project, or have their account compromised, the admin would need to be blocked and it would be a problem if they could unblock themselves. No idea how it works on other wikis. Zad68 20:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right. And if they wanted to be unblocked or re-promoted? Trout 71 20:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of a compromised account, if the account owner can prove they have regained control the the account, they can be unblocked. An admin who is blocked due to a gross breach of community trust and was de-sysopped can theoretically regain the sysop bit by going through a successful WP:RFA. Also an admin can be temporarily blocked like any other normal editor for edit-warring, etc. and have to wait out the block. Zad68 20:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, admins *can* unblock themselves. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Unblocking. Unless it's undoing a self-block you imposed on yourself it's a very bad idea. EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, huh! I didn't know that and wouldn't expect. So it's possible, but I'm not sure it's such a good idea it's set up that way. Zad68 14:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is sort of important that it be set up that way. Otherwise one admin could knock off the other admins and take the wiki. If that admin also was a bureaucrat then there would be nothing to be done (bureaucrats can't unblock, I think). Anyway are long-term blocked Admins always able to return as admins? Would everyone notice and how long does it take to stop them? Thank you Trout 71 15:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the original now closed request, I was advised the post under my regular IP [1]. I did so, you removed it. Please replace it. 166.137.252.63 (talk) 18:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

None of the IP addresses used have any history at all, so they can't be the IP used as the basis for the complaint. Please either use the IP that was editing at the time the problematic behavior alleged was encountered, or log in. Otherwise we can't review the histories of all parties involved. Zad68 18:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I edit as an IP from an ATT hotspot. I apologize for the multiple addresses but that's how ATT does it apparently. IPs are prevented from editing the article as its restricted to autoconfirmed users, so I have not edited the article. My complaint is the editor's attitude toward multiple registered users, not myself. I'm not aware of any requirement that the party filing must be the affected party. Please restore the filing. 166.137.252.63 (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I initially filed my request through a proxy, intending to post all responses through that fixed IP to avoid confusion. I was told that was not acceptable, and the request was closed because of it. The multiple IPs you see now are because I'm following the instructions I was given. 166.137.252.63 (talk) 18:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing through proxies isn't allowed. Changing IP addresses and the inability to demonstrate that a series of edits across IPs are yours, and also that multiple edits from the same IP might not all be yours, makes trying to do what you're doing difficult. I was about to ask you to identify which Talk page edits might have been yours but that's pointless, because there's no way to tell. I'll restore the AE posting but realize this is problematic. Zad68 18:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the reason for that rule but it seemed like the best of bad options. I was wrong. I considered registering an account but it likely would have been blocked as a sock puppet account. I've done mostly minor and non controversial edits so my changing IP hasn't been an issue before. Thank you for restoring the filing. 166.137.252.63 (talk) 18:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my involvement here, having blocked once, I don't have anything to add to the IP. Except, he/she seems to have lost the proxy in favour of a mobile phone network. It isn't very convincing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:45, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks zzuuzz, because our rules do not indeed specifically prohibit a dynamic IP posting a request, nor the posting of a request by someone who apparently has no demonstrable interaction with the accused party, I've restored the AE request. Zad68 18:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nicely handled. Let things be judged on their merit. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:23, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My notes

Requested enforcement by: 168.1.75.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP used to file original complaint: 168.1.75.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP used for first repost: 107.107.59.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP used for second repost: 107.107.63.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP used for Zad68 User Talk post: 166.137.252.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Zad68 18:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding closure

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

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

My closing notes cover your questions directly, and I don't see a need to repeat myself. If you're concerned the WP:OSE disallows the consideration of precedent (and I don't think you're right about that), feel free to ignore that part of my closing notes, it doesn't affect the outcome. Zad68 15:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sorry you feel that way, but I don't think you're really reading all of my closing comments. Several of the statements you're making, and the consequences you predict from them, aren't based on things I actually wrote or believe--you should be happy to hear that. Zad68 16:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your closure, and the careful wording. EdJohnston (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[2] OK, so you're boring too. Bishonen | talk 17:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hey, "unblemished" is in the eye of the beholder! (And have you LOOKED at my block log?) Zad68 17:13, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh, talkpage access removed and everything, you so badass! Come to me when thou hast seen the elephants dance. But sure, I take your point about the upset user having a clean block log like you. Bishonen | talk 17:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC).[reply]

@Zad68:, @Future Perfect at Sunrise: I'm the dynamic IP editor who initially filed the AE case against TheRedPenOfDoom. I noticed you closed Retartist's re-filing on the grounds that his Gamergate topic ban prohibits him from filing AE requests for violations in the Gamergate topic area. This is ironic given that his topic ban (for violations in the Gamergate topic area) was the result of an AE filing by editor NorthBySouthBaranof, who at the time was subject to the same Gamergate topic ban Retartist is now. Is Retartist's topic ban therefore invalid because the request that prompted it should have been closed and if not, can you explain the different standards applied in these two cases? 166.171.187.239 (talk) 17:06, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't think you will get an answer to this question despite how good it is, unfortunately. I hope @Zad68: and @Future Perfect at Sunrise: prove me wrong. 108.52.24.214 (talk) 04:12, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Zad. I didn't notice I wasn't logged in. The graphics card in my laptop crashed today so I'm confined to working on my trusty old original iPad until I can get a new laptop shipped down here. Atsme☎️📧 21:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...not quite sure why. See Mustang. For some reason the server keeps logging me out. --Atsme^☎️📧 01:36, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, got it. Whoops! Not sure... Doesn't it give you a pink background if you're editing while not logged in? I'll fix it if I'm around but you're probably better off emailing an oversighter. Zad68 01:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you - that worked. --Atsme^☎️📧 02:22, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi Zad68, Apologies for the interruption. My inquiry is with respect to the page level restrictions that were placed here. When looking through the WP:DS policy page, I noticed that the set of page restrictions approved for discretionary sanction are: "semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists)".

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

I look forward to your thoughts on this aspect. Many thanks. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:21, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]