| Revision as of 20:34, 15 August 2016 view sourceJames J. Lambden (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,695 edits →Topic Ban Violation← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:36, 15 August 2016 view source The Wordsmith (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators15,541 edits →Topic Ban Violation: not a violationNext edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| :As ] is not a "gender-related dispute or controversy", nor a person, I fail to see how his topic ban applies to Alt-Right. It seems you've taken it upon yourself to issue a ruling incorrectly, and in fact, you have no authority to issue such a ruling in the first place. Please take your concerns to an admin in the future, rather than trying to attack another editor on his talk page with spurious accusations. Thank you. ] (]) 20:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC) | :As ] is not a "gender-related dispute or controversy", nor a person, I fail to see how his topic ban applies to Alt-Right. It seems you've taken it upon yourself to issue a ruling incorrectly, and in fact, you have no authority to issue such a ruling in the first place. Please take your concerns to an admin in the future, rather than trying to attack another editor on his talk page with spurious accusations. Thank you. ] (]) 20:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC) | ||
| :: The topic ban language begins with {{tq|You are indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate,}}. The article ends with {{tq|Some sources have connected the alt-right and Gamergate}} It's a clear violation. Mark: I'll give you time to revert but between this and your last edit, also a topic ban vio (it appears your only article edits in the last few weeks have been topic ban vios) AE will be a necessary step. Rocky: your advice is misguided and unhelpful. ] (]) 20:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC) | :: The topic ban language begins with {{tq|You are indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate,}}. The article ends with {{tq|Some sources have connected the alt-right and Gamergate}} It's a clear violation. Mark: I'll give you time to revert but between this and your last edit, also a topic ban vio (it appears your only article edits in the last few weeks have been topic ban vios) AE will be a necessary step. Rocky: your advice is misguided and unhelpful. ] (]) 20:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC) | ||
| :::As the admin who imposed the topic ban, I don't consider that edit a violation. Brushing up against the line (and participating in an edit war) perhaps, but not crossing it. If his edits make a connection between the Alt-right and Gamergate that would be a different story, but they don't. It is true that the page mentions Gamergate, but that's only a violation if construed far more broadly than any sensible topic ban. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 20:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:36, 15 August 2016
A project which punishes editors for defending the good names and reputations of living people from vicious Internet trolls does not deserve to survive.
Topic Ban
I believe your topic ban "You are 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," precludes edits such as this. —Torchiest edits 22:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
- if you think that an uncontroversial pointer on a talk page to Harvard Historian Jill Lepore's latest book is a gender-related controversy,AE is thataway. Otherwise, don't write on this page again. Have a good life. .MarkBernstein (talk) 03:05, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Topic Ban Violation
The last line of the article you just edited (Alt-Right) is Some sources have connected the alt-right and Gamergate
. You are topic-banned from Gamergate. This edit violates your topic ban. Please self revert. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- As Alt-Right is not a "gender-related dispute or controversy", nor a person, I fail to see how his topic ban applies to Alt-Right. It seems you've taken it upon yourself to issue a ruling incorrectly, and in fact, you have no authority to issue such a ruling in the first place. Please take your concerns to an admin in the future, rather than trying to attack another editor on his talk page with spurious accusations. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 20:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- The topic ban language begins with
You are indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate,
. The article ends withSome sources have connected the alt-right and Gamergate
It's a clear violation. Mark: I'll give you time to revert but between this and your last edit, also a topic ban vio (it appears your only article edits in the last few weeks have been topic ban vios) AE will be a necessary step. Rocky: your advice is misguided and unhelpful. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
- The topic ban language begins with
- As the admin who imposed the topic ban, I don't consider that edit a violation. Brushing up against the line (and participating in an edit war) perhaps, but not crossing it. If his edits make a connection between the Alt-right and Gamergate that would be a different story, but they don't. It is true that the page mentions Gamergate, but that's only a violation if construed far more broadly than any sensible topic ban. The Wordsmith 20:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)