Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
For the Arbitration Committee, <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 00:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
For the Arbitration Committee, <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 00:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Callanecc@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Callanecc/sandbox&oldid=644628920 -->
<!-- Message sent by User:Callanecc@enwiki using the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Callanecc/sandbox&oldid=644628920 -->
== ] ==
I have requested arbitration enforcement regarding your harassment of Ryulong. You may respond at the case page when your existing block expires, or by writing on this talk page, where it should be copied over by someone. ] (]) 00:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Revision as of 00:51, 29 January 2015
Welcome!
Hello, Loganmac, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article They Say, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
I have nominated They Say, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/They Say. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? gracz5409:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Spreading outright lies about me on twitter
Hi LoganMac. I'm assuming this twitter sharing the same username as your wikiaccount belongs to you. Could you please remove or rectify the lies you have posted about me on twitter, and learn to actually read what someones rights before putting words in their mouth. If you had actually read what I had written you would have known that I was arguing that Erik Kain is not a pro-GG source, and has not been unduly referenced in the article. Stop spreading lies, This is completely out of order. Bosstopher (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Twitter has freedom of expression sorry man, it is true there are people trying to make Erik Kain look like a random blogger while keeping freelancers as sources Loganmac (talk) 16:35, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
But you are lying and misrepresenting information by claiming that was the purpose of my glorious wall of text. The one you are quoting "Pro-GamerGate" leaning from is me. You have inarguably misrepresented my arguments online, so it would be in infinitely poor taste not to amend or delete your tweet. Also nobody has tried to completely remove Kain as a source, even Baranof merely thinks it's overused.Bosstopher (talk) 16:39, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I know how this turns out, some admin claiming he's neutral goes and deletes half the stuff Erik said, as for the tweet, you can go ahead and spread whatever you want about me, I really don't care. Should understand Twitter doesn't abide by any self-censorship polcies like Misplaced Pages, if you think it violates their TOS, you could report me, again the tweet is just raising awareness to what I think will eventually happen, Eric Kain's source, one of the only neutral articles about the matter, will get half its content deleted on the article Loganmac (talk) 17:11, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
You are missing the point here. You are spreading misleading information about me that is outright false. You have made a factual error, you did not read what I had writen and before engaging with me escalated this straight to twitter. There is a difference between self censorship and admitting that you have made a mistake. 17:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Bosstopher (talk)
Everything related to your complaint I stated on the ANI, I asked other users advise on an unrelated matter regarding Ryuolong Loganmac (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
You are ignoring the fact that I keep on telling you what you have written about me on twitter and reddit is untrue. I am upset with what you have said no because it criticizes wikipedia, but because it lies about my intentions and and portrays me as some sort of evil zealous madman who is incredibly anti-GG beyond all sense and reason. The proper thing to do when you make a mistake is admit wrongdoing. For someone who is pro-GG you seem to have failed to notice that owning up to wrongdoings instead of shutting your ears and shouting accusations of persecution is one of the main demands the movement's been making of people. So if you wont clarify that you made a factual error out of common decency, at least do it for the sake of ideological consistency. Bosstopher (talk) 22:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I wrote a lenghty explanation and I didn't copy from the edit conflict with The Devil Advocate oh well, you state in that message that some citations from Erik's article should be deleted, and other editors agree. In any case that's why I provide a screencap, people reading it can take their own conclusion. If you took the tweet as a personal attack I apoligize but it was meant to show the state of the Misplaced Pages article, not to attack you personally, since noone actually goes and says "oh wow bosstopher is such and such", everyone that replied to that link on reddit and twitter criticizes Misplaced Pages. Your message is the least of that article's page faults, and your complaint was taken by Ryoulong as an excuse to have me topic banned, as some editors have done with Titanium Dragon, and several editors outing noobs in an extreme uncivil manner. This Ryoulong guy has called us extremely offensive slurs yet his bias is never put in doubt. My few edits to that article have been neutral as it gets, I never tried and delete misogyny and harassment mentions, which a lot of editors there seem to think GamerGate is all about Loganmac (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
The problem I have is that you still misunderstand what I was trying to say, when I said "remove citations." I did not mean remove information, Kain had put into the article. I meant replace that tiny little number box representing Kain's article with one of another person where another person could be used. This would be to prove this article is not actually oversaturated with Kain, but merely looked as if it was. The problems people had was that Kain was being spammed because so much of the article couldnt be sourced from elsewhere. My post was meant to be an attempt to prove this wrong. You made a post on twitter implying my post was arguing the exact opposite of what I was saying without asking me first to check if you were mistaken. This is what annoys me. Thanks for the apology though. Bosstopher (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I think you jumped the gun on those comments and should clarify. There are definitely some who want to remove most of the citations to Erik Kain in the article, but Bosstopher is not one of them. We already have enough misinformation being spread around on Twitter, like the stuff about WikiProject Feminism. No need to add to the confusion.--The Devil's Advocatetlk.cntrb.23:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
When "editors think what they say is not true", by definition they don't consider it reliable. If other editors nevertheless disagree and think it's true, then we have an editorial dispute; eventually it should be decided by consensus whether to use it or not. Diego (talk) 11:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
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—
You mean the flair? I don't control it, that's admins, I will request them to remove it now, didn't even know what it meant. Also that account might not be mine... Loganmac (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
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—
How about you stop harassing me and looking at everything I do offsite, several people have said that, I didn't get it from ED, also that account might not be mine mate Loganmac (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
How about you stop spreading lies about me offsite in your ongoing attempt to get the whole of the movement against me as if they weren't already. That account is definitely you and it's been established onsite already when you posted about that other person and you didn't deny owning the account then. The only place where any of those statements exist is either Encyclopedia Dramatica or the insane rankings and ravings of all the people who were banned and use Misplaced Pages Review to attack editors that piss them off. I do not appreciate the fact that you are doing this, coaching a party who is being wrongly led to believe that I have an agenda to slander him into getting me removed from Misplaced Pages, and acting as if I'm the one to blame just because I tried to ensure that the article on Gamergate met the guidelines of Misplaced Pages and if that makes me biased then I guess I'm biased.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
What I do offsite it's not of your matter, I never encourage people to come here so I'm not breaking any rules, you've admitted already that you're biased. And on the reddit account, silence doesn't mean admission, you've battled countless people, even outside of GamerGate that time and time again tell you the same thing and yet you fail to realize who's fault is it Loganmac (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
People get angry at me for such trivial reasons.
That "Mass deletion of articles" crap regards my opposition to one user creating articles on a bunch of borderline languages that are almost exclusively referred to as dialects.
There is a user who is indiscriminately angry that I don't think a section heading on one of the articles on The Amazing Race should take up half of the width of the page because of the international travelling that people technically did. And he is also angry that I've changed a template used on these pages to be more WP:ACCESS friendly because who when reading these pages is going to know to hover over a tiny little icon to know what it's supposed to symbolize?
There are a vast number of people who think that any translation quirk that exists on Misplaced Pages or a fan Wikia or TV Tropes regarding Japanese live action children's shows is because of me because here I edit the pages such that they utilize the (most recent) English translations that the copyright holders put out rather than the choices made in popular illegal fan subtitling projects or that appear on screen once and are then contradicted by the bulk of print material that came after that five second scene where the English word was seen.
There are people who because I asked a single question about the events of one episode I had not seen of a children's television show I religiously watched as a child they suddenly yell at me like I'm a cancer destroying their fandom because I'm not an infallible expert on this subject. These same people troll me because Misplaced Pages originally formatted all of those pages' titles to use a single punctuation mark that because they did not find in any material, and that they've gone out of their way to show me photographs of signed copies of the scripts of these episodes or movies or whatever to disprove me that I should be banned from Misplaced Pages. These are people who think that their insider sources and fanblogs should be used as reliable sources on Misplaced Pages when they're worse than Buzzfeed.
Gamergate is just the next in a long line of people I've unintentionally pissed off by being on Misplaced Pages and disagreeing with them. So I would appreciate if you were not as prevalent in continually fostering this movement to be against me. Because I can easily see that "Logan_Mac" on Reddit has made several threads directly about me on KotakuInAction rather than the other vague threads that don't list me in the title that have shown up. So I am just asking you to stop spreading the lies that come from people who hate me for daring to edit a Misplaced Pages page on Power Rangers or Pokemon or from people who are so fucking insane that they think that I was dating someone here (I almost was but it was someone completely different than who they accuse), all because I think that for a topic as controversial as Gamergate, only reliable sources should be used. And just because I've been incorrect in my assumption of some sources, or because I once called some other source as unreliable on another subject, should not mean I have to sit back and watch you say these things about me. If I am constantly censured by people here for things I have not done on Misplaced Pages, simply asking you to lay off a bit on Reddit should be simple enough.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:33, 15 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 580 words, so is over the limit. I realize it isn't far over, but 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)20:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not too familiar with Misplaced Pages rules regarding this, but I'm pretty sure it should be "8chan, stylized as ∞chan, pronounced Infinitechan" per everytime I've seen articles on brands with symbols it's written as what is commonly reported as and made clear how it's stylized but I could be wrong, anyway this might better be on the talk page for more discussion
A nitpick on your evidence statement about RL and GamerGhazi: He did not actually edit the alphanumeric string into the talk page, but made a one-character edit and used the string as a comment. But speaking of that whole situation, did MB seriously suggest that the way to remove the appearance of impropriety would be to have the funds raised by Misplaced Pages editors (presumably ones who agree with RL) instead, and even suggest that "his firm" would be willing to contribute a significant fraction of the money? Because I can't really find another way to read this. 76.64.35.209 (talk) 05:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
He threatened to leave like 5 times already, I didn't even bother to read that, I stopped reading after he suggested he should give the money back, as if that righted the wrong Loganmac (talk) 07:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Question
I read reading through the WP:ArbCom evidence and I had a question for you. Did you ever initiate any action against Ryūlóng for WP:OUTING over the above thread? I thought this part was really objectionable: "That account is definitely you and it's been established onsite already when you posted about that other person and you didn't deny owning the account then." No one should ever be forced to confirm or deny their offsite activity. Maybe what Ryūlóng was referring to, you did confirm it (I don't know what happened in whatever Ryūlóng was referring to), but just examining it from a distance it didn't look good. --Obsidi (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm getting the impression that there's a narrative being established along the lines of RL's "this is a content dispute" proposal, and an attempt to get the whole thing dismissed on those grounds. So I'm worried now that getting into arguments on the Workshop page is taking the bait (apologies for my own involvement in that) :( Recentering seems like a good idea here, but I feel like I'm in over my head with all the wikilawyering. Like, it recently occurred to me that I can probably make a coherent argument about how the sources are being misrepresented in the article, but how do I properly frame that as "editor is doing something wrong" rather than "the article needs to say this instead"? 76.64.35.209 (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The arbs are leaning toward a doubling of the usual limits on evidence for this specific case. I am still waiting for final sign-off, but it seems likely that most participants will not need to trim evidence. Three relevant points:
Given the substantial increase in limits, the usual acceptance if counts go a bit over will not be granted. Treat the limits as absolute.
The limits apply to both direct evidence and rebuttal to others.
In the interests of making this case more easily manageable, it is likely that we will prune the parties list to limit it to those against whom evidence has been submitted. Therefore, if anyone has anything to add, now is the time to do so.
See the list of parties not included in the evidence as of 8 Dec 14.
Please note that the purpose of the /Evidence page is to provide narrative, context and all the diffs. As diffs can usually be interpreted in various ways, to avoid ambiguity, they should be appended to the allegation that's being made. If the material is private and the detail has been emailed to ArbCom, add instead of diffs.
The /Workshop page builds on evidence. FOFs about individual editors should contain a summary of the allegation made in /Evidence, and diffs to illustrate the allegation. Supplying diffs makes it easier for the subject of the FOF to respond and much easier for arbitrators to see whether your FOF has substance.
No allegations about other editors should be made either in /Evdence or in the /Workshop without supporting diffs. Doing so may expose you to findings of making personal attacks and casting aspersions.
Also, please note that the evidence lengths have been increased from about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for parties and about 500 words and about diffs for non-parties to a maximum of 2000 words and 200 diffs for parties and 1000 words and 100 diffs for non-parties. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk)
Someone already did but he barely replies, he gets a lot of emails because of the site's problems already, you can try admin@8chan.co (public email listed on his site, no doxxing) Loganmac (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Try "probably not participating on this a lot", harder.
You note that you probably shouldn't be spending much energy or making many edits on GamerGate-related articles, which is a sensible opinion; it is uniquely foolish to risk perpetuating the sort of behaviour that led to one being a party to an ArbCom case, while that case is going on.
With that in mind I'm somewhat baffled by your decision to follow up on that comment by nominating the article in question for deletionfour minutes later, without waiting for anyone to respond to your post. This is a baffling approach, to me. For the sake of yourself, if for no other reason (and there are many), you should probably try "not participating" harder, and if you find that you can't "not participate", actively avoid this sort of content. Ironholds (talk) 18:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
You're free to appeal the nomination, but can you really look at that article and think it can stay? I said I wouldn't participate on the article that much, as in editing, I haven't. I never said I'm not spending energy on GamerGate related articles Loganmac (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Appeal? Someone simply removed it; learn how a PROD works. I think nominating it for deletion counts as "editing", but it's perfectly clear from the fact that you're splitting hairs, here, that what you actually want is to have your cake and eat it too - to wax lyrical on the content and try to steer it without getting in trouble with ArbCom. That's not how it works; every comment you make will justifiably add to the evidence pile. Stop digging. Ironholds (talk) 00:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I can still edit stuff on GamerGate why wouldn't I lol? I know how PROD works, it got removed that's all you had to do Loganmac (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Because every edit you make appears to dig deeper? Whatever. It's no skin off my back if you get slapped down by ArbCom; simply trying to suggest you put your money where your mouth is. Ironholds (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of removing a severe personal attack by you from Talk: Gamergate controversy. Please do, if you want, reword your comment in a less inflammatory way.
I deleted the comment and (above) invited you to restore your argument without personal attacks on fellow editors. If this doesn't make sense to you, please ask and I'll try to explain why we sometimes do this. --TS22:10, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi
If you have issues with me asking someone to fix some formatting errors that I discovered, bring it up here on Misplaced Pages like a normal person. Also you read those timestamps wrong as this is 12 hours before this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:21, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
While you are welcome to suggest and discuss improvements to article content, please do so without commenting on other editors or speculating as to their motives or accusing them of bias. Should you feel that any editor is behaving disruptively, please use the enforcement mechanisms to bring the matter to the attention of administrators (currently WP:GS/GG/E). Further personal comments about editors on article talk pages may result in sanctions. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Criticism of Misplaced Pages, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Inquisitor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
That was an extraordinarily stupid thing to do. Surely you've learnt by now that exporting disputes from one article to another is no going to end well? The one thing you don't do at the end of a long and messy arbitration case, especially one in which you are about to be sanctioned, is follow an opposing editor to an unrelated article to revert the. I've blocked you or 24 hours. Please take the time to reconsider you approach to disputes—if you make a habit of that sort of thing, the next block will be a lot longer. As you probably know, but just in case, you can ask another admin to review the block by using {{unblock}}. For the record, this is not an arbitration enforcement or community sanctions block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
1.1)
(i) The community Gamergate general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.
(ii) All sanctions in force when this remedy is enacted are endorsed and will become standard discretionary sanctions governed by the standard procedure from the moment of enactment.
(iii) Notifications issued under Gamergate general sanctions become alerts for twelve months from the date of enactment of this remedy, then expire. The log of notifications will remain on the Gamergate general sanction page.
(iv) All existing and past sanctions and restrictions placed under Gamergate general sanctions will be transcribed by the arbitration clerks in the central discretionary sanctions log.
(v) Any requests for enforcement that may be open when this remedy is enacted shall proceed, but any remedy that is enacted should be enacted as a discretionary sanction.
(vi) Administrators who have enforced the Gamergate general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing discretionary sanctions and at Arbitration enforcement.
1.2)
Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in this case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:
(ii) Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
(iii) There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;
(iv) The default position for BLPs, particularly for individuals whose noteworthiness is limited to a particular event or topic, is the presumption of privacy for personal matters;
(v) Editors who spread or further publicize existing BLP violations may be blocked;
(vi) Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;
(vii) Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.
The Arbitration Committee thanks those administrators who have been helping to enforce the community general sanctions, and thanks, once again, in advance those who help enforce the remedies adopted in this case.
2.1) Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.
5.3) Ryulong (talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is indefinitely banned from the English Language Misplaced Pages. They may request reconsideration of the ban twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
8.3) Subject to the usual exceptions, The Devil's Advocate (talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 48-hour period. This applies for all pages on the English Misplaced Pages, except The Devil's Advocate's own user space. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.
8.4) Subject to the usual exceptions, The Devil's Advocate (talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is indefinitely prohibited from editing any administrative or conduct noticeboard (including, not not limited to; AN, AN/I, AN/EW, and AE), except for threads regarding situations that he was directly involved in when they were started. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.
8.5) The Devil's Advocate (talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Misplaced Pages by motion of the Arbitration Committee. Further, the committee strongly suggests that The Devil's Advocate refrains from editing contentious topic areas in the future.
13) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Titanium Dragon (talk·contribs) from editing under BLP enforcement. This ban is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban. Titanium Dragon is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.
18) The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing GamerGate-related articles, especially GamerGate-related biographies of living people, should carefully review them for adherence to Misplaced Pages policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case.
I have requested arbitration enforcement regarding your harassment of Ryulong. You may respond at the case page when your existing block expires, or by writing on this talk page, where it should be copied over by someone. Hipocrite (talk) 00:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
gracz54 22:03, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Loganmac. Thank you. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
