Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:42, 15 June 2015

AE/ANI

Can any kind Wikipedian give me general advice on filing AE's and ANI's when you yourself have ways in which people might attack you -- so that the decision does not focus 100% on you, while completely ignoring the valid complaints that you made? Handpolk (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Please note, if you think WP:BOOMERANG answers my question, it does not. That essay promotes this type of outcome. Handpolk (talk) 07:06, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

What is the solution you found?

Hi Handpolk, here you appeared to say you were going to retire this account, but then here you undo that with the edit summary "think i may have found a solution". What is the solution you have found? Thanks... Zad68 16:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

is there a way i can tell you privately? Curious if it will work. Handpolk (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You can go to my User Talk, click on "email this user" from the menu on the left, and email me. Zad68 18:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. On mobile now will do that later.

To be clear to everyone; I am not attempting to break any rules or find loopholes in them or evade any sanctions or anything like that. I'm just trying to return to the Misplaced Pages I had up until a couple weeks ago. The battleground of GGC is being brought to my entire editing experience and that isn't reasonable. Handpolk (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

General note

Could the editors that Handpolk knows from the area they are topic-banned from please back off a bit? I'm not asking this as an WP:AE request or in my capacity as an admin, but just as a favor in good faith to an editor trying to disengage from the topic. Thanks... Zad68 18:04, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

These stalkers are claiming this line "In May 2012, Ellen Pao, an employee, sued the firm for gender discrimination in Pao v. Kleiner Perkins, which KPCB has vigorously denied. On March 27, 2015, after a month-long trial, the jury found against Ellen Pao on all claims.: in Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers makes that huge article and the article of everyone and everything related to that article a 'Gamergate' article and as such I cannot edit them. Please make a ruling on this. To me that seems absurd. This is harassment. None of my edits had anything remotely to do with Gamergate. Joe Lacob is the owner of the Warriors and there isn't a word on that article that smells anything like Gamergate yet my good faith edits are being reverted by stalkers who are telling me that's a gamergate article. Handpolk (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not being a stalker, Handpolk, just passing along some information. The fact that these pages are covered by the Gamergate discretionary sanctions was just discussed a few hours ago and your edits occurred before the warning notices were placed on their talk pages. See Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration/Requests#Ellen Pao for the discussion. And now I'll leave. Liz 23:35, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Liz. However that is just the opinion of a couple of my stalkers. No admin sanctions or decision. Any good faith editor would see that I'm not editing anything having to do with Ellen Pao. Handpolk (talk) 23:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

If you didn't keep blanking your talkpage you'd be able to refer back to Euryalus's topic ban notice, which states that you're banned from " (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed per Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate." As you note above, Ellen Pao sued over gender discrimination, and you're actively editing a gender-related dispute or controversy. Why should I not block you for a violation of your topic ban? You got a second chance over the notice that was here last night, this is a fresh violation. Acroterion (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

These articles have nothing to do with Ellen Pao. If you want to ban me from editing the article on the lawsuit, that makes perfect sense. How Joe Lacob is in any way related to gamergate, I do not understand. Handpolk (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Acroterion are you assuming good faith in my actions? If you looked at my contributions over the last day, I don't understand how you could think anything other than that I am acting in good faith and being stalked and harassed. I am trying as hard as I can to abide by this topic ban and to disengage from those harassing me. They won't leave me alone. Can't you see they are trying to get you to block me? Zad even left a notice here asking them to back off. They are not backing off. If any action should be taken -- it is against those harassing me. Handpolk (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

"Broadly construed" means just that. You are the one who brought up Ellen Pao up the page. You continue to sail very close to the wind. You may not remove sanctions notices whether you disagree with them or not, that is a clear-cut topic ban violation. I do not count your edits before the notice was placed, giving you the benefit of the doubt. Acroterion (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Please respond to the other things that I said. Namely: those harassing me. Do you agree I am being harassed? Do you think something should be done about that? Also, how is Joe Lacob 'broadly construed' as a gamergate article? Handpolk (talk) 23:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You're not being harassed. You've been trying to edit an article about a firm at the center of a gender-related controversy while ignoring editors' expressions of concern about a breach of your topic ban. You made the choice to edit the article, you were warned, and selectively ignoring the issues associated with the article in favor of "the owner of the Golden State Warriors" is not credible. Criticism is not harassment. Acroterion (talk) 00:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, the firm I understand. That firm has dozens of partners, one of which is Al Gore. Some work part-time or less. Joe Lacob is one of those whose main job is Owner of the Golden State Warriors. Even 'broadly construed' that article is not related to gender discrimination. If you view the article and my edits, I think you would agree. I would like permission to edit that article please. Handpolk (talk) 00:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

No. Is that plain enough? Stop testing boundaries. Acroterion (talk) 00:42, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

BLP Sanctions Notice

Not sure why you have a problem with this. The article is about a company that is involved with a high-profile case involving a living person. The BLP notice is very much applicable. — Strongjam (talk) 23:40, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

'The article is about a company that is involved with' -- do you know how many articles I'd be prevented from editing with that type of logic? All of them. Handpolk (talk) 23:43, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The notice is applicable to the article. Same notice applies to Greg Penner and you're still not prevented from editing there. — Strongjam (talk) 23:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't wait to hear this one. How is Greg Penner related to gamergate?

You guys are trying to make everything I touch a gamergate article because I touched it. That's not how this works. You are not assuming good faith and you think I'm on some gamergate crusade here. I'm not. I'm disengaging from that topic. Handpolk (talk) 23:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's not. You're not listening to what I'm saying. This notice has nothing to do with Gamergate, and the notice itself has nothing to do with you or preventing you from editing articles with it on it. It's only purpose is to let editors know that the article is about, or contains material about, living persons, and reminds them of the relevant policies. — Strongjam (talk) 23:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, my mistake. Thank you for clarifying. I thought that meant it was subject to gamergate sanctions. Handpolk (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

"rmv stalker"

Deleting people from your talk page is considered bad form if you don't address them. No one is "stalking" you. We are watching you because you are a newbie with a proven bad history. People are desperately trying to help you, and whenever you remove stuff, calling people "stalkers" - that's not looking good for you. It's looking very bad for you. I'd advise you to stop it.--Jorm (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The people who are trying to get me blocked from editing Joe Lacob are not trying to help me. They know and I know that article has absolutely nothing to do with Gamergate nor do my edits there have anything to do with Gamergate. They are harassing me.

You however I don't know for sure. So I will assume good faith that you mean what you just said. If you do mean those things, I apologize for grouping you together with those harassing me. Liz also seems to be acting in good faith. Handpolk (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Joe Lacob is associated with Ellen Pao and the sexual harassment case involving her. That falls entirely under the umbrella of "gender issues, broadly construed". Continued editing there will absolutely violate your topic ban, which, at this point, will earn you a hard and very, very permanent block from Misplaced Pages.--Jorm (talk) 00:09, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

No one is trying to get you blocked. In fact, many people are bending over backwards trying to make sure that doesn't happen. Don't let them be wasting their time.--Jorm (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

So is Al Gore then, he's a partner at Kleiner, too. Also Facebook, because Kleiner invested in them. Also Steph Curry, because he plays for Joe Lacob's team. Also every other NBA player, because they play in the same league as Steph Curry. I can't edit any of those articles either, or any articles related to them in some way? Handpolk (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This is what we're talking about when we mean "weaseling" and "lawyering". No one cares if you are actually working in bad faith or not; it simply appears that you are, and that's enough. Stop trying to figure out loopholes. You're caught, busted, and trussed. If you truly want to improve the encyclopedia, you'll start editing in non-controversial topics entirely. One of the easiest ways to do that is to not work on articles about living people. You walked the Gamergate line and got burnt, hard. Now you're up against another electrified rail. As your attorney, I'm telling you to walk away. --Jorm (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was doing. Editing the article of the owner of the Golden State Warriors is not something in my wildest dreams I thought somebody would call related to gender discrimination. Handpolk (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

"No one is trying to get you blocked." see when you say that you lose credibility. People are arguing for my block right now in AE. And you know that. People are absolutely trying to get me blocked. Handpolk (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

No, people are trying to stop you from harming the encyclopedia. Blocking is preventative, not punative'.--Jorm (talk) 00:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

'people are trying to get me blocked' 'nobody is trying to get you blocked' 'they are trying right now' 'people are trying to stop you from harming the encylopedia by getting you blocked' -- you just agreed with me. People are trying to get me blocked. Handpolk (talk) 00:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)