User talk:Vordrak: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:57, 23 June 2015

Welcome!

Hello, Vordrak, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Bosstopher (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! Vordrak, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You will have to be quick

BBC. With best wishes. Peter Damian (talk) 18:31, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case you missed them, note also this Register article from a few weeks ago: [1] and this Telegraph piece: [2] Andreas JN466 14:11, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block/Proposed decision

I have collapsed your addition at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sockpuppet investigation block/Proposed decision as it was not helpful in assisting the Committee in coming to a decision, as well as being very self-promotional. You are cordially advised that should further additions of similar nature be made, or any disruptive remarks whatsoever, in accordance with the clerks' procedures and the arbitration policy, you may be banned from arbitration pages by me, or another clerk or arbitrator. Thank you. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:45, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@L235: I request you reconsider, as I see no reason why my articles are different from the others. In fact the Guardian, BBC and Spectator articles all followed my article of 7 June 2015 and the fact that the Guardian are investigating my complaint into the journalist Chase Me spoke to is highly germane to the impact of Chase Me's actions on the project and therefore the committee's decision. However as this ArbCom case is nearly at an end I see little reason to comment further. Under the circumstances however, threatening journalists with sanctions may damage the project's reputation further and I request you withdraw your comment. Vordrak (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@L235: By way of clarification, my second article deals with the complaint about the journalist. Vordrak (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vordrak, I collapsed the entire section of media links. I want to resolve this in a manner that everyone is comfortable with. Arbitration case talk pages exist to assist the Committee in coming to a fair decision, and I don't see how a section of media links can do that. Regarding my notice above, it was not intended to sound threatening and was simply a standard notice that clerks can sanction users, as recommended by the clerks' procedures. Every action of mine, including the collapse of comments and notifications, is appealable to any clerk or arbitrator, and if you really want, this can be referred to the clerk body or the Arbitration Committee for a ruling. Thanks, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@L235:Thank you for clarifying. I did not post the media section, merely added to it which is one reason why I was taken aback at the standard notice being added to my page as opposed to the page of the person who created it. As it happens, I do think that the media section is highly relevant to the committee's decision, because the media links tend to provide evidence of the harm done by the wrongdoing found in this case. However, having regard to proportionality, I am not going to appeal the hatting at this stage as the case is nearly over and the media coverage is now obvious. Vordrak (talk) 22:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2012

The timeline suggests Symonds has been involved since 2012. On 13:45, 11 September 2012, he performed a checkuser on Historyset (talk · contribs) and Hackneymarsh (talk · contribs). Five hours later on 18:30, 11 September 2012, the Guardian article "Grant Shapps's Wikipedia page was edited to remove byelection gaffe" was published. It was the same journalist, and the article states "A volunteer media contact for Wikipedia said he could not comment on this case but "in general, if someone is really pushing it, they might end up blocked from editing". Who was the 'volunteer media contact'? Peter Damian (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standard notification

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 Gamaliel (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User TALK: Jimbo_Wales / .27Sinister.27 - Harassment on Wikipedia News Piece

I'm very interested in this TALK, I'm currently reviewing your YouTube Video to get a better idea of what's happening before I engage. I see the WP:Wikihounding and Tag Teaming have already started. I apologize on behalf of the Wikipedia Editors diligently working to prevent such harassment, and to be certain, I will be in the discussion before the remainder of the hounds are involved.

As you are a journalist, I would also like to invite you to review the current Arbitration Request for Enforcement Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#MarkBernstein against Mark Bernstein. I would warn you of it's current incivility, as certain editors seem intent on diverting the case by attacking others as well as going off-topic. But you may find it interesting. --j0eg0d (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on your Wikipedia participation

Hello, Vordrak,
So far, 80+% of your edits are to User talk pages. Given your expertise in law in the UK, Wikipedia could really use your help editing and updating articles in this subject area. Please consider contributing your time here to article creation and article building.
Also, it would be worth a few minutes of your time to read WP:NOTSCANDAL concerning any promotion of your blog posts and videos on talk pages which is not considered appropriate. Also, Wikipedia is not a forum so aside from participation on noticeboards, your comments should focus on improving articles rather than on Wikipedia politics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vordrak, you seem to have a well read blog, so please keep your politicking there. Jimmy Wales discloses ways to email him. If you want to discuss politics, that might be a good way. Coming here to attack another editor, even if you are 100% correct, is not acceptable. If you want to use dispute resolution to solve a problem, go for it. But if you continue to rattle around outside proper channels and keep doing what could be considered headhunting, I fear that your account will get blocked sooner rather than later. Don't undermine your journalism by becoming part of the story. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 00:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

re: "Don't undermine your journalism by becoming part of the story. " - too late. Inciting the subjects of the story to reignite their dispute is so far beyond the bounds of any journalistic ethics that horse is already out of the barn. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman: Mr Wales has commented in the discussion on the page in direct response to comments about me. He said - "[...] Anyone should feel free to invite anyone they like to a discussion here. [...]", so I feel that your comment is unwarranted. However I do agree with you to some extent - ordinarily I would not have taken it to the talk page. The reason my articles about Mr Bernstein are being taken to Mr Wales' page is that Mr Bernstein's series of articles 'Infamous' etcetera were taken there. My series of articles, 'Sinister', 'Improper' etcetera are a direct response. Mr Bernstein also advertises his articles on his user page.

I also agree with you that the proper venue for the complaints I and others have about Mark Bernstein may well be, sadly, dispute resolution. However as there has recently been a thread there I feel it would be reasonable of us to reflect before taking up further time. Vordrak (talk) 11:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remember investigating Mark and considering whether he needed to be blocked. I decided it wasn't worth getting into GamerGate because I don't understand the huge fuss and it's not smart to get involved in wars one doesn't understand. You should take this to Arbitration. I for one don't like the way Mr. Wales entertains grandstanding on his page, but we indulge him. Jehochman ^Talk 12:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman: Are you suggesting a second Gamergate Arbcom case? We just had one a few months ago, and although it was very fun I don't think any good can come from having another one this early. If you're suggesting an AE request that's probably an even worse idea. Mark has had roughly 10 gazillion AE requests put against him in past month (this is only a slight under-exaggeration), over sometimes the most minor of things. You can't just submit a new one against him every single week on some minor pretense or another and hope one of these days someone will get sick of them and TBAN him. Bosstopher (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with Bosstopher (hence my comment about reflection) except that it just keeps on. Bernstein et al just flout the rules now - see this. Tarc is supposedly on his last warning FROM ARBCOM but he called Handpolk a 'motherfucker'! He also posted an inflammatory comment on my blog off-wiki yesterday. It is as though you are inured to it. If this was any ordinary company he would be gone. I actually feel that it would help if Jehochman did take Tarc to AE. I will not at this time as it would stir more controversy but Jehochman is not so close to it. Vordrak (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

removing my ranting comment. I've been sticking my head into too much drama recently and should dial it down. Bosstopher (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure why I am being pinged. Is there something that I have done on-Wikipedia that someone has an issue with? I'm rather focused on shaping up Big Brother 17 (U.S.) at the moment, the premiere is tomorrow. Excited! Tarc (talk) 13:41, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yippeee kayay feather plucker. Jehochman ^Talk 14:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've always loved that line, the good ol days when movies had catchphrases and bands had guitar riffs. Now it's all comic book movies and navel-gazing emo, respectively. Shame. Tarc (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll go watch Pulp Fiction this afternoon. Jehochman ^Talk 15:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TIL that quoting Bruce Willis from Die Hard is the same as calling someone a "motherfucker".--Jorm (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, as this seems to be unrelated now to the Wiki can we please draw the (unwelcome) conversation to a close? Jehochman Vordrak (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vordrak, would you care to explain why you are trying to impersonate @Jehochman: with the comment above that one can plainly see in the page history was made by you? Tarc (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And for the record, I did not call anyone a profane word/name, I quoted a movie to Handpolk in what I thought was an amusing way. If he himself (or an admin) had objected at the time, I would have blanked it. Tarc (talk) 15:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Soz. Typo. Added my signature for clarity. However, I invite you again to end the conversation, Tarc . Vordrak (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't talk about other people if you don't want them to show up are your home page and meander about. I think this is all quite enough and I strongly recommend that Vordrak either use dispute resolution or else remain silent with regards to Mark, Tarc, et al. If you feel that action is needed, email an admin. A recent case to consider is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione. This reminds me of that one. Don't gripe about a problem in the press -- use established process to get it resolved without the big fuss. Jehochman ^Talk 15:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jehochman: what I say off-wiki is usually out of scope for Administrators Jehochman. As you are aware, I am writing a series of articles about Wikipedia harassment. I would respectfully ask you to leave me alone now as I am concerned that you have gone beyond appropriate comment. In the alternative, please ask an uninvolved administrator. Vordrak (talk) 15:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and this will by my proverbial Last Word. As a free-stylin man once said "take my name outta yo' mouth", so keep in mind that you initiated this discussion by pinging me; I would not have known about it otherwise. By the way, contrast your comment above, ...what I say off-wiki is usually out of scope for Administrators Jehochman, with your earlier line directed at me, He also posted an inflammatory comment on my blog off-wiki yesterday. On the one hand, you think I should be taken to Arb Enforcement for an alleged off-wiki comment, yet your berate Hoch and tell him that your off-wiki comments are out-of-scope? Is this irony or hypocrisy? Tarc (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 80: / Line 80: @@
 :::::::::::::Don't talk about other people if you don't want them to show up are your home page and meander about.  I think this is all quite enough and I strongly recommend that Vordrak either use dispute resolution or else remain silent with regards to Mark, Tarc, et al. If you feel that action is needed, email an admin.  A recent case to consider is [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wifione]].  This reminds me of that one. Don't gripe about a problem in the press -- use established process to get it resolved without the big fuss. [[User:Jehochman|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User talk:Jehochman|Talk]]</sup> 15:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 ::::::::::::::{{reply to|Jehochman}} what I say off-wiki is usually out of scope for Administrators Jehochman. As you are aware, I am writing a series of articles about Wikipedia harassment. I would respectfully ask you to leave me alone now as I am concerned that you have gone beyond appropriate comment. In the alternative, please ask an uninvolved administrator. [[User:Vordrak|Vordrak]] ([[User talk:Vordrak#top|talk]]) 15:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
+:::::::::::::::Indeed, and this will by my proverbial Last Word.  As a free-stylin man once said "''take my name outta yo' mouth''", so keep in mind that you initiated this discussion by pinging me; I would not have known about it otherwise.  By the way, contrast your comment above, {{tq|...what I say off-wiki is usually out of scope for Administrators Jehochman}}, with your earlier line directed at me, {{tq|He also posted an inflammatory comment on my blog off-wiki yesterday}}.  On the one hand, you think I should be taken to Arb Enforcement for an alleged off-wiki comment, yet your berate Hoch and tell him that ''your'' off-wiki comments are out-of-scope?  Is this irony or hypocrisy? [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 15:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)