User talk:Vordrak - Wikipedia

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:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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

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

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

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

Template:Z33 Gamaliel (talk) 13:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

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

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

So, you are asking Jehochman to leave you alone after you posted a comment and added his name to it as the author instead of your own, calling it a typo? That is beyond ironic.

I know any minute now, you will say you are being "hounded" or ganged up on. But if you could not take this so personally, you'll see that in the midst of this off-topic discussion is some advice on how you can thrive on Wikipedia and not get into trouble. Although I'm sure being blocked on Wikipedia would be a dynamite subject for your next blog post, I think it would be preferable if you could drop the political wrangling and start helping out Wikipedia by sharing your knowledge. Working on content, even correcting typos, would cause other editors to appreciate your presence instead of the alternative. With that, I'll take my leave. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Liz: Actually, I was simply editing from an iPhone 4, and omitted the 4~'s by mistake and it was in fact a typo. Having said that, I am now going to do some content article cleanup. Thanks. Vordrak (talk) 17:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Actions taken by administrators under WP:AC/DS don't require consensus, only appeals which require clear consensus to overturn. Statements by editors are not meant to be votes, but instead are to provide context and evidence for enforcing admins. Also, the {{reply to}} template can take multiple users so you can combine multiple {{reply to}}s into on (e.g. {{reply to|Strongjam|Vordrak}}.) — Strongjam (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Vordrak, I was coming here to leave roughly the same message as Strongjam, above. They are entirely correct when they say that statements are "not votes"; for additional reading on this I suggest the essay here. On the other concern, there is currently an active Arbitration Committee case which, from my cursory reading, might in part address the question of WP:AC/DS sanctions applied at the discretion of an individual administrators and contemporaneous WP:AE consensus to not sanction. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Strongjam and Ryk72: thank you gentlemen. I shall amend my comments on AE. Vordrak (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Vordrak, regaring your comment here at WP:AE, where you state: a count of the votes in this request shows there is no consensus for action - the community is split at a dead heat. A topic ban for DHeyward would therefore be out of process. -- This shows a misunderstanding of both how WP:AE works specifically, and how WP:CONSENSUS works on Wikipedia in general.

First, Arbitration Enforcement is special on Wikipedia, because actions at WP:AE are not the result of community consensus. AE is used only for the tiny fraction of topic areas on Wikipedia that have demonstrated to be so persistently contentious that the normal dispute resolution processes have proven not to work. Involved editors (including administrators) may make comments about the AE request, but those comments are advisory only. An AE request is ultimately closed by a single uninvolved administrator, who may chose to either consider or ignore some or all of the comments. So an administrator can close an AE request that has 100 "No" comments from involved editors with a result of "Yes" and that is perfectly within process.

Second, on Wikipedia, WP:CONSENSUS is not the result of a vote, see that policy page which states that plainly. A legitimate consensus-building argument must be grounded in policy and guideline. Theoretically, in a discussion, there could be 100 arguments for "No" but which are not based in policy and guideline, and a single "Yes" argument that is, and the correct outcome should be Yes.

These two things are important points that any new editors will need to know. Zad68 13:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Vordrak you've sent me a number of emails, and to be honest, I haven't read most of them.

I became concerned about emails from you after I saw your exchange with Gamaliel, where you apparently sent Gamaliel an email, they responded here stating your efforts might be seen as an "effort to intimidate", and you respond here plainly stating I often paint a dark picture in my emails to ensure people reply which sounds like you're not disagreeing with that assessment.

Again, as per your own videos where you express concern when encountering a preceived lack of openness and transparency, I'd really prefer all communication from you happen in the open here on-Wiki. It's inappropriate in most cases for those who are trying to influence decisions in an area they are involved in to try to do it outside the public view, and it's even more inappropriate if there is even the perception of an "effort to intimidate."

If you have a BLP-related concern or (worse) believe you've encountered legal or physical threats regarding an editor, better places for you to raise those concerns would be to email WP:OVERSIGHT directly, WP:EMERGENCY if appropriate, or see WP:LEGAL and the email here for any possible legal issues. Zad68 13:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Zad68: hey there. The first email I sent off-wiki and regarded anonymous vandalism and apparent BLP violation so I did not want to post and draw attention to it. As you appeared to be the intended victim, I do not think a reasonable editor could find that to be intimidatory of you - on the contrary I was plainly being considerate. In the end another administrator deleted the entire page I was concerned about.

My other emails in essence simply point out what I thought was a violation of the rules. However, turns out I am wrong! Thanks in particular to Ryk72 for linking me to policy. Nevertheless, it looks to me like the WP:CONSENSUS as well as the 'vote' is in favour of no action against DHeyward so I am still not sure your comments in the AE thread were fair.

I note your request that all communication be public and to avoid emails where possible and will of course seek to abide by it.

Finally just a note that there will be a fresh article on my blog in about 7 hours relating to the BBC and Wikipedia. I hasten to add that will not refer to any individual linked to the current AE, but my Member of Parliament, Grant Shapps has written to WMUK about certain ... politicised ... activities on Wikipedia. Vordrak (talk) 13:28, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Vordrak, thanks for respecting my request regarding emails.

As an academic exercise for evaluating the goings-on at WP:AE: Again, action at WP:AE doesn't require an evaluation of consensus. You need to look in the Result concerning... section at the uninvolved administrator comments. Right now only myself and Gamaliel have commented in that section, we're having a discussion but we don't strictly need to build a consensus for a specific action, either with the involved commentors above or with each other. Either one of us, or some other uninvolved admin, could come by right now and close the request with whatever action they felt appropriate. There are comments from involved editors largely falling along "party lines," which is what normally happens at AE--it's this exact phenomenon that caused AE to get created in the first place: In contentious areas, partisan "sides" would build up and whenever someone went to ANI to try to have the problem dealt with, partisans would flood the discussion, there would never be any clear consensus to do anything, the discussion would get closed with no action and the problems would just get worse and worse. AE short-circuits that, or is supposed to.

Good luck with your blog, but I haven't been following the Chase me/Shapps thing closely. Just a note about having and linking to a blog, you need to be sure that you're adhering to Wikipedia's policy of WP:NOTADVERTISING. Generally a link to one's own off-Wikipedia blog from the User page is tolerated, but regularly announcing your latest blog post, hot off the presses, click on over and read now!... isn't. The principle is that you can't use Wikipedia for advertising or promotion. There are of course grey areas that require judgment calls, but generally you can't use Wikipedia as a regular vehicle to drive traffic to your blog. Zad68 14:07, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Zad68: I do not intend to post a link to the article on-wiki, although if others do I cannot prevent it. I just mentioned it because I wanted you to read it as, whilst individuals (aside from Chase Me) are unlikely to be mentioned, there will be some comment on GamerGate as a facet of larger issues. You know where the blog is, so no link to the post is necessary.

More generally, I hope you saw the links in my emails that showed not only did I take your feedback on board but I encouraged others to treat you with courtesy.Vordrak (talk) 14:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)Reply