| Revision as of 22:57, 17 January 2015 editGamaliel (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators93,894 edits →Topic ban: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:18, 28 March 2022 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (34 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| I'll put something on the talk page and I'll see where it goes. ] (]) 16:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC) | I'll put something on the talk page and I'll see where it goes. ] (]) 16:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == |
== January 2015 == | ||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 week''' for breaching your GG topic ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. However, you should read the ] first. ] ] 09:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --> | |||
| :To add to that, I've further felt it necessary to extend it to indefinite given your ] with {{user|True Kindness}}, your ], and your probably someone else's sock. -- ] ] 09:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Fut.Perf.}} | |||
| Before saying anything further, I would stop and read ] in full. You've moved from linking to ] violating content off-wiki to making disparaging comments ''about'' living persons on-wiki. This can and does lead to a block. ] (]) 20:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| Hi, I'm appealing this ban. It prohibits me from posting on TOPICS related to gamergate. ArbCom is a voting case and it is not inherently related to Gamergate. I ask that you respectfully lift this ban. Thank you ] (]) 09:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| : Huh? You were banned "from all pages, including talk pages, on GamerGate and all matters related to it". You think the Arbcom case about Gamergate is not a matter related to Gamergate? That is, uhm, a ''particularly'' interesting piece of wiki-lawyering. But given your additional sock block, this is moot anyway. Good bye. ] ] 09:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{ping|Fut.Perf.}} As stated below, True Kindness is a friend of mine. Furthermore, I see all votes under "Proposed Principles" to have no direct relevance to Gamergate. Please reconsider. ] (]) 09:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|DeltaQuad|}} | |||
| Please be aware that quite a few people are using the same internet connection as my self and that TrueKindness is a friend of mine, not myself.] (]) 09:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|Fut.Perf.}} Regards banning Singdavion for posting in the GamerGate arbitration: Unless you're a member of ArbCom (and I don't think you are), you may have overstepped your authority. Arbitration policy states "The Committee retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes..." In short, it is the Arbitration Committee alone who has jurisdiction over what is posted in arbitration cases. Even if this were not the case, you still overstepped. Arbitration policy says "Statements may be added to case pages by any interested editor." Full stop. | |||
| Again, please read ] ''in full''. Misplaced Pages is ]. Adding your disparaging, personal opinions about living persons is unacceptable. Linking to a source that we will ''never'' use per ] and using it to add disparaging opinions about living persons is also unacceptable. Please stop before this leads to a block. ] (]) 20:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|DeltaQuad}} Possibly you have some evidence? At a minimum, I'd like to see some "diffs of edits that suggest the accounts are connected," as required by ]. While I note that you're a CheckUser, I also note that the blocks on Singdavion and True Kindness are *not* listed as CheckUser blocks. Did you run a CheckUser, and just forget to properly label the block? ] (]) 18:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Topic ban == | |||
| :::: No. . "Retains jurisdiction" does not mean "has sole authority to act upon" (otherwise how could non-arbitrators do arbitration enforcement, since the enforcement processes are also under that "jurisdiction"?) Also, "by any interested editor" of course doesn't override existing bans or blocks. ] ] 19:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| In your short time here on Misplaced Pages you've managed to ignore the advice of a number of editors on both sides of the GamerGate dispute, start an edit war, and use Misplaced Pages as a forum to disparage living individuals. In my judgment it is obvious you are here not to edit an encyclopedia but to do battle on behalf of the "truth" regarding GamerGate. For that reason you are indefinitely ], including talk pages, on GamerGate and all matters related to it, broadly construed. This ban will be reconsidered if you show an awareness of our core policies and a willingness to edit the encyclopedia in a neutral manner. I suggest you choose a less contentious topic to edit and practice that way. Please let me know if you have any questions. ] <small>(])</small> 22:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: Per {{u|Future Perfect at Sunrise}}, re a non-party to the case, topic banned from this area and editing in breach of that topic ban. -- ] (]) 19:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{ping|Fut.Perf.}} The thing about WP is that you can type in a word like ], and get a very well developed definition of the term. Which is to say "retains jurisdiction" means what it says. Non-arbitrators can do arbitration enforcement as delegated by ArbCom, and subject to WP policies and procedures. And, as for "any interested editor" - it too means just what it says, and is a matter of WP Policy. Within its jurisdiction, ArbCom authority overrides community authority; It is nonsensical to think that an administrator could come into an arbitration, and supercede ArbCom's authority with community sanctions. But... we probably need to go to ArbCom, and get a clarification from them on these issues. ] (]) 20:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{reply to|Fearofreprisal}} This was clarified during the ], by clerk {{u|Callanecc}}, other then the exceptions in ] "{{tq|if TBANed editors want to make other comments on arbitration pages they need to ask for permission from the Committee to do so}}". For most of the TBANed editors on that case exceptions where made for the arbcom proceedings by the sanctioning admin. — ] (]) 20:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Exactly so. For avoidance of doubt, had the topic ban been highlighted prior to the block I would have at least removed the comment, and would have contemplated imposing the block myself. Topic banned editors who are not parties to the case and have not sought an exemption from the ban in order to take part, are not permitted to contribute in breach of their ban. -- ] (]) 22:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{ping|Fearofreprisal}} I just want you to know I have seen this. But getting caught up in Arb work tonight and it being 5am, I need to be able to read my screen fully to reply. I'll do so tomorrow. -- ] ] 09:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| :::::{{ping|Fearofreprisal}} Better late than never, ] as requested. The block is properly labeled. When CheckUsers use evidence and block, they are not required to use the {{tl|checkuserblock-account}} template, as it also restricts admins from unblocking without consulting other checkusers. I didn't feel it was necessary here. -- ] ] 05:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::{{ping|DeltaQuad}} I was concerned with fairness -- that the block was justified and proper. Thanks for following up with me. ] (]) 12:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
| == Promotional links on your user page == | |||
| Hi again. | |||
| I noticed that your user page contains a couple of lists of links to external pages such as YouTube channels and Reddit forums. Our guideline on user pages forbids "Promotional and advocacy material and links". Also in the case of some of your links (by no means all) the offensive nature of the material linked, especially pages promoting harassment of Misplaced Pages editors and others, may also be intrinsically unsuited to Misplaced Pages user space under this guideline. For clarification see ]. | |||
| While guidelines are written to allow exceptions, I think some of this material definitely should be on your personal website (if anywhere) rather than your Misplaced Pages user page. | |||
| Since you're blocked from editing, at least for now, I've taken the liberty of collapsing the part of your user page containing the links in question. If and when you're unblocked, please bring your user page into conformance with our policies and guidelines. --] 12:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:18, 28 March 2022
Welcome!
Hello, Singdavion, 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:
- Introduction and Getting started
- Contributing to Misplaced Pages
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article
- Simplified Manual of Style
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 Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Woodroar (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi
Hi, I haven't seen you before though I notice you and I have been in roughly the same topic area since at least last month.
Normally if I reverted an edit such as the one you just made to Draft:Gamergate controversy, I'd explain it only on the talk page (Talk:Gamergate controversy in this case). As that can appear cold and even a little hostile (as can, let's face it, the original revert), I am going to explain it personally to you here.
There are really two reasons for my edit, though I only mentioned one in my necessarily brief edit summary.
Firstly, as far as I'm aware, Knowyourmeme.com doesn't qualify as a reliable source for our purposes. To be sure, it's an award winning and popular website, like Misplaced Pages. But also like Misplaced Pages, it can't be assumed to have the reputation for editorial fact checking we expect of a reliable source (as far as I know).
Second, no matter how reliable a source is, single sources will inevitably have their own bias. We aim to counteract this factor by balancing the statements of multiple reliable sources. We would not recommend one single source as authoritative, as your edit seems to propose.
My reverting your edit should not be seen as the end of the matter. It's certainly conceivable that I'm wrong and that Know your meme is a reliable source, and then at the very least we could use it to help improve our article.
Please feel free to reply here or on the talk page of the article. See you around! --TS 16:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
-- It's not a problem. I understand that the change wasn't going to stay but I suppose I just wanted to bring up the idea of putting something up as a warning. I'll put something on the talk page and I'll see where it goes. Singdavion (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
January 2015
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- To add to that, I've further felt it necessary to extend it to indefinite given your socking with True Kindness (talk · contribs), your not here to contribute to building an encyclopedia, and your probably someone else's sock. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@Fut.Perf.: Hi, I'm appealing this ban. It prohibits me from posting on TOPICS related to gamergate. ArbCom is a voting case and it is not inherently related to Gamergate. I ask that you respectfully lift this ban. Thank you Singdavion (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Huh? You were banned "from all pages, including talk pages, on GamerGate and all matters related to it". You think the Arbcom case about Gamergate is not a matter related to Gamergate? That is, uhm, a particularly interesting piece of wiki-lawyering. But given your additional sock block, this is moot anyway. Good bye. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Fut.Perf.: As stated below, True Kindness is a friend of mine. Furthermore, I see all votes under "Proposed Principles" to have no direct relevance to Gamergate. Please reconsider. Singdavion (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@DeltaQuad: Please be aware that quite a few people are using the same internet connection as my self and that TrueKindness is a friend of mine, not myself.Singdavion (talk) 09:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Fut.Perf.: Regards banning Singdavion for posting in the GamerGate arbitration: Unless you're a member of ArbCom (and I don't think you are), you may have overstepped your authority. Arbitration policy states "The Committee retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes..." In short, it is the Arbitration Committee alone who has jurisdiction over what is posted in arbitration cases. Even if this were not the case, you still overstepped. Arbitration policy says "Statements may be added to case pages by any interested editor." Full stop.
- @DeltaQuad: Possibly you have some evidence? At a minimum, I'd like to see some "diffs of edits that suggest the accounts are connected," as required by WP:SPI. While I note that you're a CheckUser, I also note that the blocks on Singdavion and True Kindness are *not* listed as CheckUser blocks. Did you run a CheckUser, and just forget to properly label the block? Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- No. . "Retains jurisdiction" does not mean "has sole authority to act upon" (otherwise how could non-arbitrators do arbitration enforcement, since the enforcement processes are also under that "jurisdiction"?) Also, "by any interested editor" of course doesn't override existing bans or blocks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Per Future Perfect at Sunrise, re a non-party to the case, topic banned from this area and editing in breach of that topic ban. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- No. . "Retains jurisdiction" does not mean "has sole authority to act upon" (otherwise how could non-arbitrators do arbitration enforcement, since the enforcement processes are also under that "jurisdiction"?) Also, "by any interested editor" of course doesn't override existing bans or blocks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Fut.Perf.: The thing about WP is that you can type in a word like jurisdiction, and get a very well developed definition of the term. Which is to say "retains jurisdiction" means what it says. Non-arbitrators can do arbitration enforcement as delegated by ArbCom, and subject to WP policies and procedures. And, as for "any interested editor" - it too means just what it says, and is a matter of WP Policy. Within its jurisdiction, ArbCom authority overrides community authority; It is nonsensical to think that an administrator could come into an arbitration, and supercede ArbCom's authority with community sanctions. But... we probably need to go to ArbCom, and get a clarification from them on these issues. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Fearofreprisal: This was clarified during the workshop, by clerk Callanecc, other then the exceptions in WP:BANEX "
if TBANed editors want to make other comments on arbitration pages they need to ask for permission from the Committee to do so
". For most of the TBANed editors on that case exceptions where made for the arbcom proceedings by the sanctioning admin. — Strongjam (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)- Exactly so. For avoidance of doubt, had the topic ban been highlighted prior to the block I would have at least removed the comment, and would have contemplated imposing the block myself. Topic banned editors who are not parties to the case and have not sought an exemption from the ban in order to take part, are not permitted to contribute in breach of their ban. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Fearofreprisal: This was clarified during the workshop, by clerk Callanecc, other then the exceptions in WP:BANEX "
- @Fut.Perf.: The thing about WP is that you can type in a word like jurisdiction, and get a very well developed definition of the term. Which is to say "retains jurisdiction" means what it says. Non-arbitrators can do arbitration enforcement as delegated by ArbCom, and subject to WP policies and procedures. And, as for "any interested editor" - it too means just what it says, and is a matter of WP Policy. Within its jurisdiction, ArbCom authority overrides community authority; It is nonsensical to think that an administrator could come into an arbitration, and supercede ArbCom's authority with community sanctions. But... we probably need to go to ArbCom, and get a clarification from them on these issues. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Fearofreprisal: I just want you to know I have seen this. But getting caught up in Arb work tonight and it being 5am, I need to be able to read my screen fully to reply. I'll do so tomorrow. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Fearofreprisal: Better late than never, SPI as requested. The block is properly labeled. When CheckUsers use evidence and block, they are not required to use the {{checkuserblock-account}} template, as it also restricts admins from unblocking without consulting other checkusers. I didn't feel it was necessary here. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- @DeltaQuad: I was concerned with fairness -- that the block was justified and proper. Thanks for following up with me. Fearofreprisal (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- @Fearofreprisal: Better late than never, SPI as requested. The block is properly labeled. When CheckUsers use evidence and block, they are not required to use the {{checkuserblock-account}} template, as it also restricts admins from unblocking without consulting other checkusers. I didn't feel it was necessary here. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Promotional links on your user page
Hi again.
I noticed that your user page contains a couple of lists of links to external pages such as YouTube channels and Reddit forums. Our guideline on user pages forbids "Promotional and advocacy material and links". Also in the case of some of your links (by no means all) the offensive nature of the material linked, especially pages promoting harassment of Misplaced Pages editors and others, may also be intrinsically unsuited to Misplaced Pages user space under this guideline. For clarification see Misplaced Pages:User pages.
While guidelines are written to allow exceptions, I think some of this material definitely should be on your personal website (if anywhere) rather than your Misplaced Pages user page.
Since you're blocked from editing, at least for now, I've taken the liberty of collapsing the part of your user page containing the links in question. If and when you're unblocked, please bring your user page into conformance with our policies and guidelines. --TS 12:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)