User talk:Protonk

Yelp

I'll be working offline on draft Snapdragon (system on chip) and Paul Jacobs articles over the weekend; then I have meetings on Monday for Heather Bresch and Qualcomm, so I'll take a shot at the Yelp controversy re-organization if we don't hear back from Coretheapple by Sunday if I can finish these articles or Tuesday at the latest.

I've also been looking for help on the RealPlayer page if you're interested. Not bringing it up to GA, but just asking for some cleanup of junk sources in the second half of the Controversies section and in the RealAlternative section. I've been forum shopping a bit, but getting a lot of "I'm busy IRL" type stuff. Even though I have a reputation for not being your typical spammy or spin-doctory COI, I think it is still not the kind of thing many editors take an interest in doing. CorporateM (Talk) 22:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• @CorporateM: I'm happy to leave the Yelp review on hold as long as you need. I'll take a look at the real player page, but (unfortunately, given your other requests!) I can't promise I'll be able to spend too much time with it. Protonk (talk) 22:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I put a draft re-structure up at user:CorporateM/Yelp CorporateM (Talk) 23:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The draft is de-annotated. I can do some of the tedious stuff in article-space afterwards if you like, like making sure the cites still work and trimming some of the redundancies pulled from other sections. CorporateM (Talk) 21:35, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Justa Punk ban

I've noticed that you blocked one of his State Library of Victoria IP's for six months. Could you please extend it to a year to be consistent with Material Scientist (see the other IP banned at the same time - last digits of both are 26 and 22). Curse of Fenric (talk) 03:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Curse of Fenric: Can you point me to the other IP? Sorry for making you search for it but it's hard to track down disparate blocks for the same editor. Protonk (talk) 13:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
  • 203.17.215.26 is the one you blocked. 203.17.215.22 is the one Material Scientist blocked. Curse of Fenric (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
    •  Done Protonk (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

radium GAN

Unfortunately I am way busier than I would like to be at the moment and as such I'm worried that I won't have enough time to get everything done by tomorrow (7 days after the review) – so I'd like to request it remain open for another week, when I will very likely be able to return to last month's activity level on WP. Sorry for the inconvenience. Double sharp (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Double sharp: No worries. I should put this disclaimer at the top of my reviews, but I'm happy to leave the review open for as long as you need to improve the article. This is especially true for Radium as not all of my suggestions are line-by-line improvements. If you prefer I can change the status to "on hold" but I don't think that actually matters so long as both of us know what's going on. Protonk (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
  • OK, I am back. Took longer than expected, but now I have enough time to deal with the rest. I'll work on it today and over the next few days. Double sharp (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Kilgour–Matas report/GA2

I think I have addressed all your initial concerns. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 09:44, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup - Round 1 Newsletter #2

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 1 Hello GA Cup competitors! The judges have learned a great deal in this first part of the competition, and we appreciate your patience with us as we've figured out what works and what doesn't work. As we reported in our last newsletter, an inadequacy in the scoring system has been illuminated in the past 15 days, which has resulted in a major change in the rules. It has also resulted in one withdrawal. To ensure fairness, we've decided to further increase the number of participants moving onto Round 2. Everyone who has reviewed at least one article will automatically be moved forward, and will be placed in pools. You have until October 29 to take advantage of this opportunity. It is our hope that this will make up for the unforeseen glitch in our scoring system. Best of wishes to all of you as you continue to help improve articles and make Wikipedia a better place. Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Endorsement request

Hi, Would you mind if I used you as an endorsement for online ambassador at the education noticeboard?--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gernatt Family of Companies

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Gernatt Family of Companies. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate help

We're working on what the sections should look like and contain, but coming up with titles is hard :( Help us? Kaciemonster (talk) 00:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Cosmic Stories and Stirring Science Stories

I've been working on another magazine article, and I wondered if you'd be willing to take a look at it before it goes to FAC, since you've been so helpful on the other articles. No problem if you're too busy, of course. The article is on a pair of related magazines: Cosmic Stories and Stirring Science Stories. There's no hurry; it'll probably be weeks at least before my current article at FAC is done, and I have others ready to go. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Ford Island ACR

Thanks for the support. Did you see the quote from the Kane book I left for you?--v/r - TP 06:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

• @TParis: I did. Sorry for not responding directly because I suspect that question was one of the reasons you had to hit the library. :) I think that supports the claim in the text (I'm always a bit worried with cultural anthro statements). Two thing I'd suggest thinking about are (because Kane is not explicitly invoking other literature) attribute it to Kane in text and call it a "courtship game" rather than just a game (I realize the previous sentence indicates it is about courtship, but that's a clearer compound noun. However that's at your discretion. Thanks for following up! Protonk (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		Thank you for helping a group of students in my Crowds, Communities and Technologies class! By monitoring and guiding their contributions, patiently answering their questions, and accepting their newbie mistakes, you made a difference in their first experience as Wikipedia editors. Here is an excerpt from one student report who worked on the Cheshire Cat article: When I initially posted to Protonk's Talk page to thank him for his immediate feedback, I made the mistake of posting at the top. I had neglected to follow on the customary practice of adding new content to the bottom of the page. Instead of scolding me, or making me feel bad for this mistake, Protonk simply moved my post to the bottom of his page with a friendly reply that reminded me of this norm. Thank you! LeshedInstructor (talk) 18:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Happy Halloween!!!

Wilhelmina Will has given you some caramel and a candy apple! Caramel and candy-coated apples are fun Halloween treats, and promote WikiLove on Halloween. Hopefully these have made your Halloween (and the proceeding days) much sweeter. Happy Halloween! '"On Psych, A USA Network TV series Episode 8, The Tao of Gus, Season 6, Shawn refers to pumpkins as "Halloween Apples" because he thinks all round fruits are a type of apple. If Trick-or-treaters come your way, add {{subst:Halloween apples}} to their talkpage with a spoooooky message!

Cheers! "We could read for-EVER; reading round the wiki!" (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup - Round 2

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 2 Greetings, GA Cup competitors! Wednesday saw the end of Round 1. Jaguar took out Round 1 with an amazing score of 238. In a tight race for second, Peacemaker67 and Ritchie333 finished second and third with 152 and 141 points, respectively. Two users have scored the maximum five bonus points for article length (60,000 characters+). Anotherclown reviewed Spanish conquest of Yucatán (77,350 characters) and MrWooHoo reviewed Communist Party of China (76,740 characters). The longest review was by Bilorv who reviewed Caldas da Rainha. The review was approximately 22,400 characters which earned s/he two bonus points (20, 000 - 29, 999 characters). In Round 1, 117 reviews were completed, making the first round of the GA Cup a success! A total of 86 articles were removed from the backlog during the month of October! We hope to see all remaining users fighting it out in Round 2 so we can lower the backlog as much as possible. To qualify for the second round, one completed review was needed, which 28 users accomplished. Participants have been randomly put into 7 pools of 4; the top 2 in each pool will move onto Round 3. There will also be one wildcard. This means that the participant who comes in 15th place (all pools combined) will also move on. Round 2 will start on November 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on November 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 2 and the pools can be found here Also, remember that a major rule change will go into affect starting on November 1, which marks the beginning of Round Two. Round 1 displayed a weakness in the rules, which we are correcting with this new rule. We believe that this change will make the competition more inherently fair. The new rule is: Your review must provide feedback/suggestions for improvement, and then you must wait until the nominator has responded and all issues/suggestions have been resolved before you can pass the article. Failure to follow this rule will result in disqualification. The judges will strictly enforce this new rule. Good luck and remember to have fun! Cheers from NickGibson3900, Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:University of Cambridge

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:University of Cambridge. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Please review Hitachi Magic Wand

Notifying you as you were the adviser to the GA Reviewer, no obligations or expectations. :)

As part of a Quality improvement project, I've recently put the article Hitachi Magic Wand up for Peer Review.

Participation would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Hitachi Magic Wand/archive1. — Cirt (talk) 06:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate Arbcom

Please note the instruction for your statement in the Gamergate request for a case:

Without exception, statements (including responses to other statements) must be shorter than 500 words.

Your statement is at 712 words, so is over the limit. I see several statements are over, and I am contacting anyone who is over 500. Please recall that this statement is not intended to be a full exposition of all evidence, which occurs at the next step, but simply a statement requesting a case. Please trim back your statement. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda arbitation request opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration and have not been listed as a party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 3 December 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC). Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Please comment on Talk:Aspromonte goat

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Aspromonte goat. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate opened

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/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup - Round 3

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 3 Greetings, all! We hope that all of our American GA Cup competitors had an enjoyable Thanksgiving holiday. Friday saw the end of Round 2. Two from 7 pools, plus a tie score and one wildcard (16 in all) moved onto the next round. Some pools were more competitive than others. Round 2's highest scorer was 3family6, with an impressive 255 points. Good888, who came in second place overall with 202 points, reviewed the most articles (19). The wildcard slot for Round 2 went to Jaguar. Congrats to all! Round 3 will have 15 competitors in three pools. The key to moving forward in Round 2 seemed to be reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates; almost everyone who moved forward nominated at least one article from the pink nomination box (20 points) or reviewed articles that had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). The GA Cup was also used to promote a group of articles about The Boat Race, a rowing race held annually since 1856 between Oxford University and Cambridge University, on the River Thames. 17 Boat Race articles were promoted to GA in November. In Round 2, 110 reviews were completed, as compared to 117 in Round 1. The GA Cup continues to be a success. This month, we got a report from User:AmericanLemming, who maintains the GA statistics, that in October, there was a net gain of 201 articles nominated for GA. He thought that more open GANs could mean that more editors are submitting more of their articles to the GAN process. In addition, having a high-throughput of GANs means that more articles get reviewed more quickly, which reduces the frustration of potentially waiting several months to get an article reviewed. The activity in Round 2 of the GA Cup seems to bear that out. It's our hope that the competitors' enthusiasm continues in Round 3, and we can continue to make a difference in helping more editors improve their articles. For Round 3, participants have been randomly put in 3 pools of 5 contestants each; the top two in each pool progressing, as well as the top 2 of all remaining users. Round 3 will start on December 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on December 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 3 and the pools can be found here. There have been a couple of rules clarifications to announce. We're slightly changing the wording to the second bullet in "General rules", which now reads: You may only score points in a round for reviews which have been completed in that round. We're also including this clarification: Only reviews started during the competition are eligible. We have also lost a judge, so there are now only three judges. Good luck and remember to have fun as we move into the holiday season. It is the judges' hope that every competitor in the GA Cup has a joyous holiday season and Happy New Year. Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of individuals sanctioned during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of individuals sanctioned during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:SupremeSAT(Pvt.)

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:SupremeSAT(Pvt.). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Protonk. 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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Best, Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Season's Greetings and Happy New Year

		Happy Holiday Cheer
		Season's Greetings, Protonk! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user an Awesome Holiday and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings! Joys!--CaroleHenson (talk) 06:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank You

I've submitted the new Lawrence Trent article for review and couldn't have done it without your help! Req: Science Law Chess (talk) 06:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Renault

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Renault. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

GA Cup - Round 4 (Semi-Finals)

WikiProject Good Articles's 2014-15 GA Cup - Round 4 Happy New Year! We hope that all of our GA Cup competitors had an enjoyable and safe holiday season. Monday saw the end of Round 3. Eight contestants moved forward to Round 4—the top two contestants from each of Round 3's three pools and the top two participants of all remaining users. It was an exciting competition, especially towards the end. Round 3's highest scorer was Jaguar, Round 2's wildcard, with an impressive 305 points, the highest score in the GA Cup thus far. Pool B was the closest race; J_Milburn and Cwmhiraeth switched places a few times in the final hours of the competition, although J Milburn edged out Cwmhiraeth by just 9 points. Pool A was, by far, the most competitive; four out of five moved onto Round 4, and its competitors earned a cumulative 935 points and reviewed 59 articles. Ritchie333, who came in second overall with 255 points, reviewed the most articles (17). Peacemaker67 and Wizardman earned the two wildcard slots, with 184 and 154 points, respectively. Congrats to all! 114 articles were reviewed this round, as compared to 110 in Round 2 and 117 in Round 1. The key to success in Round 3, like in Round 2, was reviewing articles with the longest nomination dates; everyone who moved forward reviewed articles from the pink nomination box (20 points) or reviewed articles that had languished in the queue for over 5 months (18 points). Many of these articles had languished because their nominators had left Wikipedia and had little chance of passing to GA, so our competitors provided a great service by helping remove them from the queue. Also as in Round 2, The Boat Race articles proved to be popular review choices, with 10% of all the articles reviewed in December. We appreciate the competitors' continued enthusiasm, even during the busy holiday season. At least one competitor even reviewed articles while preparing for a holiday meal! For Round 4, participants have been randomly put in 2 pools of 4 contestants each. The top two in each pool will progress to the finals, as well as the top participant (5th place) of all remaining users. The semi-finals will start on January 1 at 0:00:01 UTC and end on January 29 at 23:59:59 UTC. Information about Round 4 and the pools can be found here. We received some excellent feedback about how to improve the GA Cup in the future, including the definition of "quickfails" and the use of pools, which we'll seriously consider as we move forward. As a result of this feedback and the experience we've gained, there will be some changes to the rules come next years GA Cup. Good luck to all our semi-finalists! It is the judges' hope that every competitor in the GA Cup continue to have fun and be enthusiastic about reviewing and passing articles to GA! Cheers from Dom497, TheQ Editor and Figureskatingfan. To subscribe or unsubscribe to future GA Cup newsletter, please add or remove your name to our mailing list. If you are a participant still competing, you will be on the mailing list no matter what as this is the easiest way to communicate between all participants.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Yelp

Since you did the GA review, I thought you may have an interest in the Request Edit I posted for some updating based on new sources that emerged over the last few months. CorporateM (Talk) 16:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fractional-reserve banking

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Fractional-reserve banking. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Jackthomas321

Hey Protonk, can we revoke Jackthomas321's talk page access? Homeboy's lost his shit. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Whup! Kinu got it. Thanks Kinu! Also, can we keep that discussion up there? I think it ends pretty hilariously. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

He was talking about me, Protonk. :) I've never been the mistaken target of a misogynistic tirade, so that was a spectacle to behold. And for the record, I'm pretty sure he pulled something similar on Flyer22, who actually is a woman. I can't find it, but there's this for your enjoyment. Not sure what percentage of this is actually what he thinks, and what percentage is trolling. There's a part of me that actually believes he is this way in his daily social interactions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

SP

Any thoughts on finally explicating on your September comment for a SP op-ed? :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 16:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:World Vision International

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:World Vision International. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Pollard Memorial Library and UMass Lowell Library Edit-a-Thon

January 25 - Pollard Memorial Library and UMass Lowell Library Edit-a-Thon #2 - You're invited

Pollard Memorial Library

Date Sunday January 25, 2014 Time 10 a.m. – 4 p.m. Location Pollard Memorial Library 401 Merrimack St., Lowell, MA. 01852; Please use side entrance on Colburn St. Event An editathon on Downtown Lowell related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslowell or #glamwiki. Registration http://uml.beta.libguides.com/wikipediaeditathons or use Wikipedia:Meetup/Boston/secondlowell_editathon. Yours, --LibraryGurl (talk) 18:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

October–December 2014 Milhist reviewing award

		Military history reviewers' award
		For completing 2 reviews during October–December 2014, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Military history reviewers' award. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Please comment on Talk:Manhattan

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Manhattan. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That one's on me, champ

[1] [2] Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:21, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

What the actual fuck

Ok, HJ Mitchell, this better be good. Protonk (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked

That you, an admin for crying out loud, didn't just think that you actually said it NB: RevDel'd astounds me. You not only advocated ignoring policy, but repeated an egregious BLP violation while you did it. I've blocked you for 24 hours under the gamergate discretionary sanctions (of which you are aware because you commented on the case, on the Arbitration Committee noticeboard, and because you must have seen the very prominent editnotice alerting you to the sanctions on the talk page. This is an arbitration enforcement action and may not be reversed without my explicit consent, that of the Arbitration Committee, or a community consensus. Further, you are topic-banned for a period of three months from all articles and discussions related to gamergate, broadly construed. You can appeal that to WP:AE/WP:AN and/or ArbCom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• That you feel such a statement is actionable astounds me. Protonk (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
• @HJ Mitchell: Do you mind explaining why you blocked and topic banned Protonk but didn't block or topic ban me for making what was essentially the same comment that he did (twice)? Kaciemonster (talk) 00:46, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, here we go.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Well. Never thought I'd have to use one of these, hopefully I don't mess up the syntax. I was apparently blocked for BLP violations. I defy any administrator to explain how stating THE SINGLE MOST WELL SOURCED AND CENTRAL FACT in the gamergate controversy represents a BLP violation so foul that the edit needs to be deleted and the editor blocked. Further, I'd like an explanation how we're supposed to talk about harassment and sexist accusations against women if we can't refer to those in text. Protonk (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This unblock request can't be granted. Not because I think this is a good block, but because this is explicitly marked as an AE block. (These require consensus to undo, to the point that even an Arbitrator can't reverse it in an unblock request.) If you fill out Template:Arbitration enforcement appeal below, someone will copy it over to WP:AE for an appeal of both this block and the topic ban (I assume you would like to appeal both). For anyone who reads this, this decline is procedural, and is not an endorsement or affirmation of the block. Courcelles 23:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

To be fair, the statement you're blocked for making is the same kind of comment a number of other people on whatever (ahem) "side" have been given BLP warnings or sanctions for making. Startling to see both aspects of this go down, but I think you're best off making your take-away from this that if we expect others to not toss around that particular accusation, even as a reference to someone else thinking it, administrators probably ought to model the same. YMMV may vary as far as thinking it's necessary to restrict it or not, but if we're restricting it for some... A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you know this is weak tea. I'm not sure what principle we're defending. Once I find it I'll defend it with you, but I can't get behind the notion that we can't refer to the allegations which kicked off the GG controversy and...well...are in the article text right now. I know admins are held to a higher standard but I'm not going to present a unified front of stupidity. There is literally nothing, nothing that violates BLP in that statement. It is a sourced (look in the article), sourceable statement of fact that would not constitute anything close to defamation or disparagement anywhere except (evidently) on the GG talk page. Protonk (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Protonk surely you can see where you went wrong? What you have said is a clear BLP violation. I honestly think you're best just taking 24 hours out in this case--5 albert square (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Point to the BLP violation in that sentence. Protonk (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Unless you're scared that pointing to the actual violation would, in itself be a violation. If that's the case, you've got some sense of the ridiculous nature of things. Also I'm not joking about this. That statement is sourceable to a half dozen reliable sources and even if it were unsourced, it's not defamatory. Protonk (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Saying that Seigenthaler shot Keneddy would be a BLP violation. Saying that an anonymous editor added such an accusation to an article on wikipedia would not be. We have an entire article devoted to that completely false and spurious accusation. Should we redact that whole article? Protonk (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You forgot to cite a reliable source. Really, that's the fig-leaf of BLP sometimes. Guettarda (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not commenting on the block, but I think the problem is that the ex-boyfriend claimed that Quinn slept with (named journalist) in return for good reviews, until it was pointed out that (named journalist) concerned had actually never reviewed her game. Black Kite (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to clarify - the ex didn't ascribe any motives to Quinn. Those were claimed by other people. He only accused her of having affairs, and made no claims as to why. - Bilby (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've read the whole thing now and personally I'm not convinced this is a good block. Nothing I can do about it though as it's an AE issue. Black Kite (talk) 01:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey Black Kite, I'd like to elaborate but I don't know if doing so will shake the encyclopedia to its very foundations, so it'll have to wait. :( Protonk (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm not impressed with the block. If the simple presence of a link connected to the statement in that particular place is the entire reason for the block (and topic ban), that's excessive. Guettarda (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Courcelles. Protonk (talk) 23:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• It may not be the stupidest block I've ever seen in my time here, but it's certainly in the running. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:01, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Dude!

What'd you say? Email me. Also, 5 deep breaths. Hipocrite (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Off-wiki funny business

Just curious what sorts of proposals, discussions, etc. you've come across that present a viable (or not) remedy or strategy to the problem of off-wiki coordination. As I read your Signpost piece which mentions ArbCom's attention to but eventual inaction on the matter, I realized that I couldn't remember any proposed solution (at ArbCom, at a village pump, at some article RfC...) that got any real attention and/or that presents something that might be workable. Plenty of policies regarding SPAs, but off-wiki coordination shares that symptom with plenty of other activities/causes. Somehow I imagine you've talked about this or looked into this a fair bit lately, so maybe I'm just asking for a link to the most relevant recent thread. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Many of the older cases--especially and importantly those which cemented the norm in the first place--were defined by one important fact: the community shitting on wikipedians was much, much smaller than wikipedia. Nobody, to a first approximation, ever read Wikipedia Review. It was an entirely practical solution to tell an editor to ignore Daniel Brandt's spittle flecked ramblings about them because it neither impacted wikipedia nor materially impacted the editor. It's not just that wikipedia is a big website, the community was actually fairly large in comparison to many other communities from 2004-2007. Moreover, most of the "wikipedia editor so and so sucks" posts were on communities that had built themselves around criticizing wikipedia (and will necessarily be much smaller than us). That's not true anymore. There are plenty of active online communities whose concurrent users dwarf Wikipedia's. Our site may be in the top five, but we're not the only people with a few thousand highly active participants. I think we first need to realize that the norms we've created make sense if the "off-wiki" community is tiny. Those communities are no longer tiny and so a core unspoken assumption melts away.
• I don't have threads off hand and I don't have past writings on the topic (actually, that's probably not true, I just forget where they are). If you want to talk in a bit more specifics you can feel free to send me an email. I've got a bit more to say, but it's probably not best said now. Protonk (talk) 00:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

AE

I copied the below appeal to WP:AN where I believe it belongs.

jps (talk) 03:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Per the text at AE, I think it belongs there, not at AN. Guettarda (talk) 03:24, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but per the text at the rules for how to run AE appeals, apparently AN is the place to do it. In any case, someone might move it and that's fine with me. It obviously doesn't belong here. jps (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Protonk

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user

Protonk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Protonk (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Sanction being appealed

24 hour block and 3 month topic ban pursuant to GG sanctions, logged here

Administrator imposing the sanction

HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Protonk

Please bear with me through a somewhat indirect appeal, as the justification for my block is so Kafkaesque I cannot diagram the single sentence which provoked it to defend my actions without inviting further sanction.

I was blocked under the GG discretionary sanctions for this edit (admins can review the diff). The justification was (near as I can tell) "advocat[ing] ignoring policy" and "repeat[ing] an egregious BLP violation" (diff) while doing so.

The statement that I made is unambiguously true, sourced to multiple reliable sources in the gamergate article, and central to the dispute at hand. Further, the only way to read defamation or denigration from that sentence is to rip words out from the incredibly limited context I provided. I'm not even making the half-assed claim that you have to read that sentence in light of my entire oeuvre or even a whole paragraph in order to gain context--you just have to read the entire sentence. Like I said above, I can't diagram said sentence here, so forgive me an analogy.

We have on Wikipedia an entire article devoted to a scurrilous accusation, one which is obviously provably false. An accusation which not only violates BLP it caused the BLP policy to come into being. In it we state "The article falsely stated that Seigenthaler had been a suspect in the assassinations of U.S. President John F. Kennedy and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy." We recognize that the embedded statement "...Seigenthaler had been a suspect in the assassinations..." is a BLP violation. It's a false, unsourced claim about a living person. The encompassing sentence is not a BLP violation because it is a true, sourced claim. It cannot be one regardless of the awfulness of the original claim. There is no transitive property of BLP.

Further, the same basic idea is already present in our current article: "Shortly after the release of Depression Quest on Steam in August 2014, Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post, described by The New York Times as a "rambling online essay", containing a series of allegations, among which was that Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson." Snipping out the meandering clauses we get "...Quinn's former boyfriend Eron Gjoni wrote a blog post...[alleging]...Quinn had an affair with Kotaku journalist Nathan Grayson." I'm really struggling here to see the substantive difference between that and what I wrote. If the distinction was that I didn't cite my source, a 3 month topic ban seems a bit harsh.

As for the charge of advocating ignoring policy: fuck that. The interpretation of BLP which I decried in that edit is perverse and nonsensical (see this redaction for a good example, paying close attention to what was and wasn't retracted). If our policy is arbitrary enough that an admin (admittedly one who is pretty intemperate and not very smart) can get topic banned for three months over a single edit for content that is already in a wikipedia article then I have absolutely no regrets in advocating we ignore it. Protonk (talk) 02:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Protonk

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Hey Courcelles I think I did it correctly this time. Can you copy this over? Thanks. Protonk (talk) 02:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, done right. Someone already copied to AN while I was on the road. Courcelles 03:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Apropos of nothing...

I have a newfound appreciation for how byzantine our processes are for getting unblocked and how helpless a blocked editor can feel. That is all. Protonk (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2015 (UTC)