Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cwobeel (talk | contribs) at 02:26, 1 October 2015 (→DS Notice: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Please add comments to the bottom

UTRS Account Request

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

Morehead

I trust you mean "Morehouse"?--Nowa (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Doh. Yes. Thanks! --DHeyward (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban

It occurs to me that your comments at WP:AE and on my talk page are in direct violation of your topic ban. This is exactly the kind of vexatious behavior that the topic ban was designed to prevent. Given that I should not be operating the block button or heavy machinery at the moment, I'll give you the evening to explain why this might not be and deal with this in the morning. Gamaliel (talk) 00:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Everyone needs to chill about all this. @Gamaliel:, maybe just let this go.--MONGO 00:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I don't really need the hassle. Gamaliel (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Or just email me? Bernstein canvasses for support off-wiki via Twitter etc and if this particular situation crosses over some on-wiki line then I'm quite happy to deal with it by other means. It is no secret that I have been compiling an ArbCom case. - Sitush (talk) 00:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

For Gamaliel to enforce this topic ban against DHeyward after twice declining to enforce it against MarkBernstein would be nothing short of absurd. Which means, given my experience with Gamaliel and MarkBernstein, we can probably expect it to happen any moment now. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 00:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

While I don't recall what alleged instances you are referring to, I have declined to enforce lots of possible sanctions against lots of people. There is a long list of instances where DHeyward has escaped sanctions, for example. But there aren't internet boards full of people coming to Misplaced Pages to complain that he hasn't been blocked yet. Gamaliel (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a 3-way IBAN. Considering it was brought up on the AE request by Liz a while ago, it would be stale to act on it now since it closed. Second, you are the admin that imposed it. Appealing to uninvolved admins and especially the imposing admin is one of my only recourse to provide information. Leaving that information on your talk page, rather than AE is in the exact nature and spirit of what you said the Interaction Ban included. If you don't want to place it on the AE page, that's your discretion. As Starke Hathaway noted, I asked you to drop IBAN or enforce it numerous times and each time you whittled it away in its scope to where I only understand it to prevent me from bringing new actions. Had you not closed it so quickly, my recourse is to ask you to put on the AE request which would have been the same thing as what I did. I would find it rather odd to complain about your talk page when it wasn't on article space or noticeboard space which is where you complained about it being disruptive, but your talk page where it is permitted. When implementing it, you seemed to think invoking the Interaction Ban so that Orlando Thargor and I could not bring AE action against MB, it would end MB's appearances at the noticeboards. That did not happen. It would be rather punitive to somehow enforce this as an IBAN violation when the only reason is another close of another MB appearance at another admin board. --DHeyward (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The intent of the topic ban was to get all three of you to stop complaining about one another. And yet, here you are complaining about him. I've looked at the log and the sanction has not been officially modified in any way, so it is still in force. I'm sure Sitush or MONGO would be glad to post any list of diffs you feel you need to post to AE. WP:DROPTHESTICK, now. Consider this an official reminder, which I am logging. Gamaliel (talk) 02:13, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh no...MONGO definitely not interested in anything with the word arbitration in it...I can always go see my ex mother-in-law if I want some agony in my life.--MONGO 03:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Orlando and I never complained about or discussed each other. MB filed back-to-back AE requests because we commented on him at ARBCA (Against Thargoragainst DHeyward. Your solution was the IBAN believing that it would reduce the drama at AE. This all played out when he was topic-banned and that was all unwound when Dreadstar went supernova. After that I requested it be dropped or enforced. Multiple times regarding both comments on talk page, reverts and comments on admin noticeboards. Each time, you declined to remove the topic ban and explained the "intent" didn't include all those things. Asking anyone else to post my material would be canvassing. The only avenue is providing material to uninvolved admins as it is explicitly stated as allowed. I emailed the material to all commenting admins prior, except you, frankly due to perceived hostility to me. They didn't acknowledge receipt prior to your close, save for one that said they weren't able to review immediately. However, I will take your reminder to heart as I understand the concern you have articulated and what you believe I did wrong and I will take a few days to consider my options. I would hope you would also seriously consider the advice you gave Masem regarding the GGC article and consider it for your own AE enforcement participation where MB is concerned. It is good advice and you have been involved in GGC enforcement for over a year which I am sure is taking its toll. Enforcing admins have come and gone and perhaps a clean slate is not a bad idea. --DHeyward (talk) 04:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I have been trying to become less involved. At AE, for the last several GG requests I've merely commented instead of imposing sanctions or taking actions, which is why that ridiculous drama fest that was the last request went on for five days instead of two. This makes it frustrating when people bring long complaints to my talk page demanding I take action while simultaneously complaining about my involvement. Gamaliel (talk) 12:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

But you put your comments in the uninvolved administrators section. This puts doubt on whether your intentions to become less involved are sincere. If you must make comments on AE, I would do what Liz did. Also, hatting the discussion counts as taking an action to me. 97.125.135.34 (talk) 13:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is denying that was an action. Were I attempting to be more active, it is an action I would have taken days earlier. Gamaliel (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

If you were attempting to be less active, then you would have waited until either another admin closed it; Or until most of the arguments made in AE were addressed. Yes, it is a dramafest, but it isn't senseless, mindless banter. 97.125.135.34 (talk) 14:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps there were some sensible arguments buried in the drama somewhere. Next time we need to do a better job of policing the statements so they can't be manipulated by outside interests for the lulz. Gamaliel (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Gamaliel, if it is your sincere belief that discussing the AE request against MarkBernstein is a violation of a sanction you imposed on DHeyward, why are you continuing to discuss it with third parties on DHeyward's talk page? Surely this discussion would be more apropos on your own talk page, no? -Starke Hathaway (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right. Anyone who wishes to discuss this should take this elsewhere. DHeyward can archive or delete this as he sees fit. Gamaliel (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record

I know we disagree on a great many things, but I believed you to be a reasonable and principled person. It would appear I was wrong about that. Pity. Dumuzid (talk) 03:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Dumuzid I'm not sure what prompted that comment but I am a reasonable and principled person. A little more detail would be appreciated..--DHeyward (talk) 03:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban

I have removed your statement at Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard as a violation of your topic ban. Perhaps you are frustrated about what happened to Masem off-site, but the violator was not Mark Bernstein and the violator has already been blocked. Gamaliel (talk) 16:56, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

@Gamaliel:...don't you mean interaction ban? Unless I'm mistaken, he violated your interaction ban....DHeyward is not topic banned too is he?--MONGO 18:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Topic banned from the topic of Mark Bernstein. I didn't make it an interaction ban so they could discuss edits if necessary. Gamaliel (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification...due to my denseness, I am oftentimes in need of clarification.--MONGO 17:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Uh-mazing

Regarding the Ahmed Mohamed arrest/detainment discussion: While I can be pretty rigid at times about policy, I will never understand editors who stick with "We go by what reliable sources say!" even in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary. Yes, we go by what reliable sources say because they are reliable which is synonymous with "Never Wrong!". Gawd. You would think that with Texas law quoted and linked in conjunction with the released police report that proves an arrest never could have occurred, Common sense would take over, but you've got those who will never bend on this one. I maintain it's due in large part to a severe case of POV. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: I agree with you that we need to get it right and we have reliable sources. The law and the press release are primary sources, but the Texas AG's guidebook that interprets the law is a definitive secondary source. When I first saw your argument, I was applying the state I am familiar with but it made me look it up. I am asking a few TX LEO's if they make the distinction (they obviously have a different process for juveniles and the press release is spot on with wording taken exactly from the AG guidebook). People get hung up on handcuffs but that's most likely a standard procedure and order for any custodial transport, not just arrests. Someone being taken to a mental health hospital for involuntary committal will be handcuffed behind their back and it's not an arrest. Police are taught from day one to watch hands and control hands because hands can kill. --DHeyward (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Something I linked to yesterday addressed the use of handcuffs in a detainment situation with a juvenile. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Here's what I think will happen: it will come out, as the Mohamed case develops with CAIR's involvement, that he wasn't arrested but detained. This article is the beginning of that road. Eventually, it will be clear that he wasn't arrested -- even if the POV pushers and warriors refuse to see/admit it now, that's exactly what happened. We've done pretty much everything we can to prove that isn't what happened, but detainment/investigative hold doesn't fit the agenda of editors who are busy pushing their version of the story and arrest does. I think if we are patient, the truth on this will come out soon - unfortunately, in the meantime, we will have an article that gives the wrong story because of editors who are using policy like robots because the truth is doesn't fit their desired narrative. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

@Winkelvi:I verified with some Texas police that we are correct. Their software (the ones I talked to) that they use for writing reports. For disposition, the software doesn't allow "arrest" for juveniles as a choice. It can only be "detained," which is brief, or "taken in custody." The report will never say "arrested" for juveniles. Offenders that are adults have "arrested" as an option. Juveniles don't face penalties for the crime, per se, but rather the only finding is delinquency and the court looks for appropriate responses for delinquency. So even if juvenile justice chose to pursue it, it would be a delinquency hearing, not a "hoax bomb" criminal charge. --DHeyward (talk) 05:28, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I figured it would come out that way. Good on you for verifying it. But, is that "reliable" enough for those with an agenda for their discrimination narrative? I doubt it. After all, "reliable sources" are never wrong! And, it doesn't matter how many other reliable sources are saying "detained", enough sources say "arrested" to suit their purposes, sadly, and that's enough for them to hijack the article (at this time, anyway). -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed  05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Disputed free use rationale

Please do not delete the {{dfu}} template until the rationale is assessed. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I assessed it and removed it after correcting all deficiencies. --DHeyward (talk) 23:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

By Texas statute: "Section 552.002(c) specifies that “he general forms 41 in which the media containing public information exist include a book, paper, letter, document, e-mail, Internet posting, text message, instant message, other electronic communication, printout, photograph, film, tape, microfiche, microfilm, photostat, sound recording, map, and drawing and a voice, data, or video representation held in computer memory." (web site of Texas Attorney General)

The photograph exceptions given are only: "Sensitive crime scene image” means a photograph or video recording taken at a crime scene, contained in or part of a closed criminal case, that depicts a deceased person in a state of dismemberment, decapitation, or similar mutilation or that depicts the deceased person’s genitalia."

"A photograph that depicts a peace officer as defined by Article 2.12, Code of Criminal Procedure, the release of which would endanger the life or physical safety of the officer, is excepted from the requirements of Section 552.021 unless:

(1) the officer is under indictment or charged with an offense by information;

(2) the officer is a party in a civil service hearing or a case in arbitration; or

(3) the photograph is introduced as evidence in a judicial proceeding.

(b) A photograph excepted from disclosure under Subsection (a) may be made public only if the peace officer gives written consent to the disclosure."

"An employee of a governmental body who is also a victim under Subchapter B, Chapter 56, Code of Criminal Procedure, regardless of whether the employee has filed an application for compensation under that subchapter, may elect whether to allow public access to information held by the attorney general’s office or other governmental body that would identify or tend to identify the victim, including a photograph or other visual representation of the victim. An election under this subsection must be made in writing on a form developed by the governmental body, be signed by the employee, and be filed with the governmental body before the third anniversary of the latest to occur of one of the following:

(1) the date the crime was committed;

(2) the date employment begins; or

(3) the date the governmental body develops the form and provides it to employees."

Also photographs of "minors" participating in recreational activities or programs are exempt.

AFAICT, the image is a "public record" under pretty clear Texas law (it was furnished with other documents by an agency subject to Texas law). The photograph was released to the public by an agency subject to Texas law, and can not be "copyright" by that agency, but would only be able, in fact, to be withheld under the stated limited circumstances. As it is not a photograph of any person or dead body or body parts, that pretty much kills all the reasons for asserting it can not be used under Texas law. Collect (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

Please join the discussion instead of just reverting. The is the way we solve content disputes in Misplaced Pages. There is a growing list of sources calling these conspiracy theories, and using SYNTH calling these "Contrarian views" or describing them as "alternative narratives" to try to soften the fact that these are indeed nutty and fringe, is nuts (no pun intended) - Cwobeel (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Reported to Arbitration Enforcement

Please see WP:AE for a report of your recent WP:BLP violations.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 05:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Placing here rather than new section, as it's on same board above. I wanted to let you know about editing a post you added (Re: Bachcell), index was "off" and I fixed that on sub-heading format. Hopefully you don't mind. :-) – 99.170.117.163 (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

DS Notice

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Template:Z33 - Cwobeel (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)