Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:05, 28 November 2014

I'm attempting (not too successfully) to take a wikibreak from most things except The Misplaced Pages Signpost and The Misplaced Pages Library. At this time, I may not be responding here to matters unrelated to those two projects.

Request for Arbitration declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Feel free to see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm 13:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

What is that movie titled?

I am disappointed in you. I had absolutely no involvement in the discussion and Samsara did a clear and acceptable closing. I restored based on Samsara 's closing without reviewing the arguments. As the review is RS, the next question is whether the review is noteworthy. If you feel it isn't noteworthy, post a new RFC. In the meantime you are quibbling about whether you think....... Revert please. – S. Rich (talk) 05:42, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you are participating in Victor's transparent farce. He purposely tailored a very narrow RFC that he knew many would agree with and is now using the results as a mandate for an edit beyond the scope of the RFC. Gamaliel (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 October 2014

• Featured content: Go West, young man

• In the media: Misplaced Pages a trusted source on Ebola; Misplaced Pages study labeled government waste; football biography goes viral

• Maps tagathon: Find 10,000 digitised maps this weekend

• Traffic report: Ebola, Ultron, and Creepy Articles

• Recent research: Informed consent and privacy; newsmaking on Misplaced Pages; Misplaced Pages and organizational theories

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

America: Imagine the World Without Her

Hello, regarding America: Imagine the World Without Her, can you please add references for the reviews that you are quoting? You can use the {{cite news}} template; Edge of Tomorrow (film)#Critical response is a sample section from which you can copy use of the template. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) 04:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Erik: I didn't want to do the work of formatting the citations properly if I was going to be immediately reverted by Victor or whoever. I'll add them tonight if the article remains stable. I'm glad you've shown up, perhaps an experienced film editor can help whip this article into shape. Gamaliel (talk) 04:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand that you expect to be reverted. I have some thoughts about reporting on the critical response, which involves structuring and attributing. Erik (talk | contrib) 04:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you can make some headway here. The key issue seems to be that Victor attributes negative critical response to a negative political response and can't separate the two. Gamaliel (talk) 04:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that appears to be the case. My thinking is that we could have a traditional critical response section and a political commentary one, and the latter may be a space in which the critics' coverage is commented on. This would work under WP:NPOV, which says to explain the sides, fairly and without bias. I will see what I can put together. Erik (talk | contrib) 05:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also saw this. I ask you to refrain from inconsiderate remarks. If there are obstacles to building the article, we can request input from the WikiProject Film community to determine consensus for different elements. Erik (talk | contrib) 04:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not going to be nice to someone who has been treating me like crap for six months. Gamaliel (talk) 04:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

It's policy to be civil. I know it's frustrating, but the key is to focus on content and to involve additional editors to break stalemates. Erik (talk | contrib) 05:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand and respect what you're trying to do here, but if you only talk to one person in an uncivil exchange, then what you are essentially doing is asking them to be a punching bag for the other party. Gamaliel (talk) 05:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, focus on content. It really is a thing. :) Animosity is not going to forward any discussions. Stalemates have to be recognized when they happen, and then we can seek out additional input rather than getting frustrated and hostile with one another. In the meantime, any chance you can retract this? If the uncivil exchange continues anyway, I will talk to the other editor. Erik (talk | contrib) 13:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

New Misplaced Pages Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The Misplaced Pages Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

• DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
  • English signup
  • Deutsch signup
• Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
• Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
• British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
• Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
• Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
• JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Misplaced Pages projects: sign up today!
--The Misplaced Pages Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Misplaced Pages Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Well....yeah. I've been thinking the same thing.

Y'all look like fun loving peo...er...beings. I'm not the type to run to admin and tell except in extreme circumstances, but you might want to self revert your last edit since it puts you at 4 reverts within a 24 hour period. 0; 1, 2a 2b, 3,4 You never know what someone else might do.VictorD7 (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea if your warning is sincere or not, because it's hard to gague your sincerity, but I do sincerely thank you for your comment, at least the part of it where you aren't acting like a jackass. I do wish that you would try harder to restrain your baser instincts, if such a thing is possible, and maybe with a slight effort towards maturity on your part this could have been resolved in the summer. That said, I don't believe that first "revert" is in fact a revert. But I will self-revert anyway because it was inappropriate for be to indulging in edit warring, as I was in this case, and I should exercise restraint even when you are unable to do so. I have to set a good example for the children, after all. Gamaliel (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

While we'll have to disagree on who's been immature/trollish/jackassish/inappropriately restrained, my notice was sincere. Regarding the first revert, it's my understanding that undoing prior actions is a revert, which is why I provided "0" to show you were restoring items another editor had recently deleted, rather than just adding entirely new material.VictorD7 (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

We'll have to disagree on that interpretation, but I do believe that is a good faith disagreement, so thank you again for your post. Gamaliel (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted posts on Gamergate talk pages:

I admit to being a bit baffled. I'm not saying that all of my posts were very polite, but then again, so were others, especially one guy did nothing more than troll in reply to everyone criticizing the heavily biased #gamergate wikipedia entry. Maybe you can point out what exactly was so terrible in my posts that they had to be censored? And let me add that I think it is a crying shame that this is happening at all on a "talk" page, as long as I'm not insulting anyone. It shows once again that there is no fair discussion here, when it comes to #gamergate. There is a heated discussion on this page and I can't for the life of me understand why 7 (SEVEN!!) of my posts were deleted. Censorship stinks, especially on a discussion page.Die-yng (talk) 20:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't comment about others on the article talk page, it violates the expected standards of behavior and exposes you to possible sanctions pwer Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Gamergate. If you want to talk about others, take it to a noticeboard and follow WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Also, review WP:NOTFORUM, and confine your comments to the editorial content of the article. Dreadstar ☥ 20:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I only removed one of your posts myself, and in that post you said to another editor "all you have to contribute is trolling". It should be obvious why that was inappropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: I'd like to draw your attention once more to Die-yng, who is conducting a slow-motion edit war in the talk page of Brianna Wu. This isn't precisely a single purpose account, but it's nearly one. Since Brianna Wu is young and has been famously the subject of death threats, the username could be subject to an unfortunate construction. On the other hand, the name predates Gamergate by some months and a Google search indicates that a similar name is used elsewhere by a German individual to whom that construction might not immediately occur. MarkBernstein (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Gamaliel (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

after dinner, I see that this has been resolved. Thanks, I also see that, if I'm reading this correctly, a very long user page post that mentions me has been deleted and hidden. That's dandy -- unless there's something there I need to know. I'll trust your judgment on that. MarkBernstein (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

He said that you had advised him that his post might be seen as an attack on Brianna Wu, and he responded that it was not his intention, with a bunch of specific references to youtube posts, etc. That's the only mention of you in a very long message. Gamaliel (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 November 2014

• In the media: Predicting the flu, MH17 conspiracy theories

• Traffic report: Sweet dreams on Halloween

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Adjustment of Die-yng's topic ban wording

Could I suggest that you modify the wording of Die-yng's topic ban from 'articles' to 'pages'? PhilKnight (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. Thank you for noticing my oversight. Gamaliel (talk) 01:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Signpost <noinclude>ss-2014-11-07T13:37:00.000Z">

I notice here and here you lost the <noinclude>...</noinclude> from some of the Signpost boilerplate, which was screwing things up on Misplaced Pages:Misplaced Pages Signpost/Single. This week there was also {{{1|...}}} left in the {{Misplaced Pages:Signpost/Template:Signpost-article-start}} invocation, which I had thought was causing trouble but now I realize that seems to have been harmless. Just thought I'd let you know. Thanks! Anomie⚔ 13:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)s"> s">

ArbCom notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GamerGate and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Dylan

Hi! Was wondering what was wrong with my edit? See you self-reverted. Glad I wasn't a complete moron.Onel5969 (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, misclick, totally my fault. Gamaliel (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thank you for your work keeping the "Gamergate controversy" article in line with reality. Charginghawk (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI

When Russavia (, , he was editing as an IP earlier on the page on other proxies), Loganmac (), and ChrisGualtieri () are all informing him that I'm wrong and must be dealt with I feel somewhat concerned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You have a right to be concerned. But we are also concerned about your interactions with Auerbachkeller. Also, I doubt Auerbachkeller will be willing to listen to your concerns after you've accused him of threatening him. I will bring your concerns to him as a neutral party if you will stay out of it. Gamaliel (talk) 21:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I have reformatted the initial posts where I referred to his message as a threat and notified him of that. The threat concerning RTG also being on ANI is being used against me as well according to Knowledgekid87, when everyone knows that's just a retaliatory version to my own thread requesting he be IBAN'd from me. I am way over my head here. Gamergate is nothing like the nutjobs at WR or ED.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I realize that GG is a complicated issue, but not every incident is about the totality of it. Right now my sole concern is getting you to moderate and disengage from Auerbachkeller and nothing more. Gamaliel (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, stop seeing everything as one issue and just apologize to Auerbachkeller. Even if he was incorrect in his initial demands, it's because he doesn't totally understand Misplaced Pages rules and policies. You do. It's not hard to admit when you're wrong, and it takes the pressure off when you do. Everyone makes mistakes. Offer your hand and sincere apology, I think that would do a lot to resolve any left over ill will. Dave Dial (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC) Edited to add, I see you have already done that now. Imma leave this, but wanted to note you had already done as I suggested before I suggested. heh Dave Dial (talk) 22:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Well I did apologize and he refused, and my reaction to that refusal is apparently evidence enough, but we know all this already. But I have a more pressing issue. Despite the fact that I have requested multiple times that RTG be interaction banned from me, with a still open thread with no real opposition to said ban, he has jumped into the Auerbach tiger pit to continue to find people to be against me . Why is he still allowed to jump into this shit?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:42, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

TDA also keeps flooding the discussion with every diff I've made to the article that he disagrees with.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

I undid your closure at ANI regarding Ryulong and left your comment at the top. The apology wasn't accepted and explicitly rejected. I think that means it is still ongoing. I proposed a topic ban with time frame being undetermined. Jimbo recommended a similar one for Tarc if he didn't voluntarily recuse. Personally, I have doubts about authenticity of the new account and it's possibly trolling but AGF and the reaction to it was not good and it's because of the topic, not the editor. --DHeyward (talk) 00:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

He is within his rights not to accept Ryulong's apology, but now that it's been offered, there is nothing actionable to deal with at ANI besides hurt feelings and the stirring up of drama. Gamaliel (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Still, there is a call for more aggressive DS to reduce the drama. SPAs are part of the problem. High conflict editors are another. Tarc has already been admonished. I've asked if there is a way to verify the person in dispute with Ryulong but at the same time it doesn't excuse his behavior. It's not the first time either for Ryulong. Reopening wasn't to stir up drama as there is plenty of drama as long as these editors are contributing to GamerGate. There are many other editors (Tony Sidaway for one) that isn't drawing drama to the article. --DHeyward (talk) 03:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

He's not a troll or anything, and is the real David Auerbach(look at his Twitter feed). Dave Dial (talk) 04:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Aah. I'm twitter illiterate. I knew he was a real person. I knew there was a verified connection to Tarc but not Ryulong or WP. Thanks for the link. --DHeyward (talk) 04:11, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Was your suggestion to Ryulong that "it would be a good idea for you to refrain from dealing with User:Auerbachkeller or his writings from now on" accepted? (It was, after all, my initial request.) I haven't gotten an answer on this and I am avoiding contacting Ryulong directly. Auerbachkeller (talk) 19:51, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• No, nobody ever mentioned "or his writings', that is incorrect. And as I've told you before, while I think it's a great idea for Ryulong to take a Wiki break right now and stay away from you voluntarily, dictating that editors here do not cite your writings is not going to happen. Period. Dave Dial (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Gamaliel did. Why do you think I put that part in quotes? Good lord.

This has the potential to make the GamerGate article dispute even messier than it already is. User:Ryulong, I think it would be a good idea for you to refrain from dealing with User:Auerbachkeller or his writings from now on. I don't think you are handling your interactions with him well and you are blowing things out of proportion. I also think that Auerbachkeller should be wary about who he takes advice from, as he risks being used as a proxy for editors who are inappropriately attempting to drag him into preexisting conflicts. Gamaliel (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Ryulong_accuses_me_of_threatening_him.2C_WP:CONDUCT_issues Auerbachkeller (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Then it seems as if Gamaliel is incorrect in his opinion, since it seems as if Ryulong did not incorrectly paraphrase Isquith's article concerning your article. You could answer the questions posed to you on the Jimbo Wales Talk page, specifically the one posed by Anthonycole. Ryulong's interaction with you as a Wiki user was an issue, but it seems after further investigation, he paraphrased Isquith correctly. Unless you have something further to add on Jimbo's Talk page, the issue is now over with. Dave Dial (talk) 21:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Jimbo has asked Ryulong to stay away from the article (multiple times). --DHeyward (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

So should I jump off of a bridge if Jimbo tells me to?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Considering the difference between not editing a Misplaced Pages page and jumping off a bridge, I'd suspect his jump request would come after severe crimes against children and/or nature. I have yet to see the bridge request though, so I presume you are safe. This isn't the place to discuss your overly dramatic personal proclivities, though, so my comment endeth. --DHeyward (talk) 03:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Well at least I can say that Mr. Auerbach is being an adult about all of this considering he's tweeting my comments to his 3.5k followers on Twitter.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I really am not sure what to do here. Can we take this back to ANI? Gamaliel (talk) 07:19, 17 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 673 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) 20:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will cut it down to 500 by the end of tomorrow. Gamaliel (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The Signpost: 12 November 2014

• In the media: Amazon Echo; EU freedom of panorama; Bluebeard's Castle

• Traffic report: Holidays, anyone?

• Featured content: Misplaced Pages goes to church in Lithuania

• WikiProject report: Talking hospitals

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Great work on In the media this week. Was really crisp and fun to read :) Jake Ocaasi 03:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Gamaliel (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

An item for the next edition? -- Euryalus (talk) 03:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

This will almost certainly be the lead story of the next ITM, but I'll be honest, I'm not sure what to say about it besides the basics. Gamaliel (talk) 07:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Your question

Off to bed and out all day tomorrow, I'll answer on Wednesday. Dougweller (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

IP addresses and filing requests

Hi, I filed a request in regards to DungeonSiegeAddict's behavior on the Gamergate articles , and the editors there cast doubt on my evidence because I'm simply an IP address. I have no desire to create an account at the moment, so is there another place where I can present my evidence where there is more good faith?--137.111.13.200 (talk) 00:08, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Creating an account, even if it is one you do not intent to use for the long term, would be by far the simplest way to address this situation. Gamaliel (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Contributing to the signpost

Hi Gamaliel, I was wondering if I could contribute an article to the "In the Media" section of the next issue of the Signpost. (In particular, this article piqued my interest in doing so.) Everymorning talk to me 16:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Everymorning: Yes, please do! We need all the help we can get. The next ITM will run in the November 26 issue, so there's no rush. Gamaliel (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration elections question two

Your about the gender gap for the current arbitration committee elections is one that I would prefer not answer since I am currently a clerk in the ongoing arbitration case over the matter. If you insist on an answer I would be happy to answer in private, but I think it would be best for me to not speak on the matter while the case is ongoing. Ks0stm 19:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand and commend your prudence and I personally won't hold the lack of an answer in this case against you. Gamaliel (talk) 20:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

“Shlomo Sheckelstein”

What is the right thing to do about a talk page edit like this: ]? Ignore it? Delete it Report it to AN or AN/I or someplace else? MarkBernstein (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

This is pretty clear cut disruption, so I made it go and the IP addresses go away. Since he's been hopping IPs, I semi-protected the talk page for a day and the article for a week. Let me know if he appears again. Gamaliel (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Re revdels at Talk:Zoe Quinn

Without comment about whether the early September REVDELs are justified, they are inconsistent. You deleted revisions which add — material in questionable taste, at best — without deleting following edits where the material is still present. If a term (pseudo-victim?) is to be considered a WP:BLP violation, then all version of the talk page which contain that must be REVDEld. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I have revision deleted many, many edits on the GamerGate articles. I'm afraid I'm unable to recall these particular edits, sorry. Gamaliel (talk) 17:11, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Rape, Sodomy, Gamergate

Please take a look at ]. I think it's a big deal (obviously), and will accept any number of tasty trout tif need be, but have no idea how best to proceed. MarkBernstein (talk) 17:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

User:MarkBernstein, me neither. Discussion is ongoing, as distasteful as some of it might be, so I guess we'll see where that goes. Gamaliel (talk) 05:00, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the page protection. Goodness me! MarkBernstein (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

A question concerning a user without a page

Dear Gamaliel, I am just learning ... so I use this method to contact you, forgive me!. You deleted - due to a legal threat - a user page of "Helpsome". This user seems to have deleted several criticism of leaders of a certain Buddhist sect. May I know what the legal threat was? Thanks, Otaku00 (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Otaku00, I'm sorry, I don't think I can reveal the contents of deleted edits. Gamaliel (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --DSA510 Pls No H8 21:44, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I know we've had our differences in the past and this didn't help. I'm very sorry about lashing out at you yesterday, and I hope that you might forgive me. --DSA510 Pls No H8 02:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Pending changes protection at Gamergate controversy

Hello Gamaliel. Did you mean to put this article under PC protection on 22 November? Given that the full protection is still in effect I wonder if it could be removed. And what would you think of adding a padlock symbol such as {{pp-dispute|small=yes|expiry=22 April 2015}}. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Pending changes couldn't hurt, I suppose. No big deal either way, in my opinion. Good idea about the notice, I've added it. Gamaliel (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Notification

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cobbsaladin (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Yikes

Sent you email with details of what I know. My first glance doesn't suggest urgent need for police. If I'm wrong, please forward to appropriate authorities, OK? Meanwhile, See sanctions page and Gamergate page, where the usual suspects are muddying the waters for their allies and co-conspirators. I'm SO done here. You have my home and cell phone numbers. MarkBernstein (talk) 04:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:DUCK

I'd like to question in good faith the notion of linking me to an essay about obvious sockpuppets as a response to my comment. What was the implication that was meant of that? Tutelary (talk) 20:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages: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, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm 22:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

I've been critical of you this week, and I appreciate you taking the moves you did to help the situation along. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Your closure is confusing

Your closure of my topic ban discussion is confusing. 1. Hasteur clearly stated 'no less than 30 days' yet I suddenly get an indefinite topic ban? Where did you garner that level of 'long term disruption' from me, additionally? The users only used the example of the WP:ANI as the only example, and didn't cite any other edits relating to GamerGate, and therefore, no diffs. They also just claimed I was 'disruptive' in some fashion without providing any proof, yet they get the full support of the !vote? 2. The consensus of uninvolved editors is that this user has been a source of long-term disruption regarding this matter Where does it say in WP:CONSENSUS that administrative actions are to take only uninvolved users' opinions into account? That's really ridiculous because I thought each and every user had the same amount of weight in a discussion. And if you counted the IP which I tagged as an SPA in article Social Justice Warrior's afd, then why wouldn't you count the supposedly involved editors? 3. Objections are from involved editors or are largely procedural in nature, which I discounted since the sanctions give administrators wide latitude in these matters. Why does it matter that they are procedural, and under what authority did you use to discount them? THey are still an oppose !vote. You were supposed to be assessing consensus, not using discretionary sanctions, since it was a community action, not a discretionary sanctions one. 4. I see exactly 10 and 10 support and oppose !votes, if we're counting every single person (including the IP and myself) Where was the clear consensus? 5. Particularly BoboMeowCat and Sonic and the IP were not 'uninvolved' editors. BoboMeowCat has had a long history filled with animosity towards me on a lot of articles. Sonic is the same. The IP I tagged as an SPA in Social Justice Warrior which I can see that they took to a point to try to tag on extra !votes. Not 'uninvolved'. 6. I don't consider you an uninvolved administrator regarding this action, since you were just yesterday claiming that I was the reason that nothing could get done, and you linked me to the essay WP:DUCK (which you still haven't responded to as above) and you hat warred my comments. This topic ban seems like an action to punish me for yesterday.

What I would like to happen as a result of this in different choices. 1. An overturn of my topic ban 2. Euphemizing it to 60 days (especially since Hasteur only proposed 'less than 30 days') 3. A reopening of the discussion and temporary rescind of topic ban for a better consensus.

Thanks. Tutelary (talk) 19:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)