Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:00, 31 January 2015

This user is in school. This user is taking a wikibreak and may be away or inactive for varying periods of time. Although he may occasionally be able to do some editing, messages left for him may not be replied to for a while. He will be back on Misplaced Pages when school is over.

Talk Page

Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot

Hi Retartist! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the TeahouseThis message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I always thought

that the whole point of philosophical quotes was to be vague? Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 22:50, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: News and More

Hello Retartist. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of News and More, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Radio stations are generally considered notable, even without references. Thank you. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 11:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Declined speedy

Hey, I declined the speedy on Destry (band) because there was *just* enough notability asserted by way of the album and the band members. I can't honestly guarantee it'd pass WP:BAND if it went to AfD, but there was just enough notability asserted to where it'd pass speedy. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've just done the same thing with Mainframe (band), because a claim to have released a few singles under Polydor Records is generally sufficient to pass the speedy deletion criteria. I have, however, added a proposed deletion tag as the article is completely unreferenced and the claims, even if sourced, may not necessarily be sufficient to pass our notability guidelines for musicians. Ritchie333 11:44, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion criterion G5

I have just declined three speedy deletion nominations you have made under criterion G5 (creations by banned or blocked users). In none of the three cases could i find any evidence at all that the user was evading a block at the time when they created the page in question, and a page is not deleted because the person who created it later became blocked. If you know that a user was, in fact, evading a block, but that fact is not likely to be obvious to an administrator reviewing the speedy deletion nomination, then you should give an indication of where that evidence is. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The user in question came to my attention when i was browsing Special:NewPagesFeed and filtered new pages created by blocked users, all the pages were created after the user was blocked. Retartist (talk) 23:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Update, he was blocked on November 2 and he created the page(s) on November 3 Retartist (talk) 23:07, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, a page can't be created by a blocked account, and it needs to be a different account of the same user. If you know what other account of the same user had already been blocked before the page was created, then you need to indicate what account that was, as without that information no administrator has any of verifying that the page was created by a blocked user. Usually in such cases the block log for the sockpuppet account says what earlier account it is a sockpuppet of, but in the case of Mike78040 the block log entry just gives the reason as "Copyright violations", with no mention of any previous account.

As for the dates of creations of pages, as you can see here, Limperich (SWB) was created at 21:02, 1 November 2013, not 3 November. (If you have your Misplaced Pages preferences set to show your local time, rather than GMT, you may see a different time than the one I have quoted, but it can't be more than 12 hours different, so, depending on what time zone you are in, it could show as 2 November, but not 3 November.) JamesBWatson (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Sphe07 created Eliakim Khumalo on 30 October, even further away from the 3 November that you quote as the creation date of all the articles in question: . JamesBWatson (talk) 18:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it was my mistake. Will check before tagging. Retartist (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Your G5 tags were mentioned in Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Wikigabriel11. In case you have anything further to say, please comment there. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Shibe Inu Doge meme.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Shibe Inu Doge meme.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Misplaced Pages. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Labradoodle and siberian husky cross border collie puppy.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Labradoodle and siberian husky cross border collie puppy.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Retartist/Userboxes/Doge

I removed the nonfree image in User:Retartist/Userboxes/Doge per the NFCC criteria 9, Restrictions on location. If you have any questions, please let me know. --Guerillero | My Talk 22:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

• I have removed the image from the 'Dogepedia award' you placed on Cmcnamee's talk page per the same criteria given here already. Please do not keep using non free images. Thank you. SagaciousPhil - Chat 11:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Doge (meme)

A file uploaded by you is currently being discussed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2014 January 27#Doge (meme). --Stefan2 (talk) 14:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

CSD contested

Hi there, I have removed your {{db-nocontext}} on Mi esqueleto, as it has enough context to identify what it is about. Feel free to Propose deletion or take to AfD if you disagree. Thanks, --Mdann52talk to me! 11:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Mecaplast Group

Hi, I would like to find out why you have tagged my article for speedy deletion. Thank you for our response.(Albert av (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2014 (UTC))

Image Studio Lite Submission Declined

Retartist,

Thank you for reviewing the Image Studio Lite article. The Articles for Creation are very backlogged, and I appreciate your time.

However, could you please be more specific about what parts of the article your think are not objective (maybe compare this to similar articles like Image J)? Would it help if removed the line about “A full version of Image Studio ….” from the intro and boiled the Features section down to a summary?

Thank again,

Sam at LI-COR (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

To Clarify I meant that the page read as if it was a page on the producers website listing the products features to a potential user like: Photoshop Features. The point was that I felt that the article was too much like the tutorial guide source and had not enough on its actual use towards Western blot images. So if you were to add more on its use and added more third party sources it may pass. Retartist (talk) 01:40, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

• I see, thank you for clarifying. You don’t perceive that the article is written in a promotional tone, but you think that 1) the article’s emphasis on features makes it seem promotional and 2) it also requires more external validation. Those are interesting points. I think a different perspective may address your concern #1, but concern #2 is something I would like to ask you about.

To the first point: as you mentioned in your comment on the article page, the software has an input (this input is images) and an output (the output is data that correlates optical density of spots on an image with biomolecule abundance in a sample). The input image types are explained, the method of obtaining data (quantitation & background subtraction) is explained, and the outputs (export) are explained. My opinion is that this article addresses the workings of IS for a scientist interested in reading about image processing software, even if the content is arranged around features. Let me know if that makes sense.

POINT 2: is the tricky one. The Ultimate Source for information about IS is the user guide; other sources are secondary. My hope was to provide sources such as Luke Miller’s blog and the How to WESTERN-BLOT to provide other tutorials that substantiate my explanation of IS lite. The “Further reading” and ”External links” provide notability. However, this format of providing references makes it impossible to inline references, which I think is what you want. How would you have me address this quandary?

Thanks again for your time. You are helping me make this article a valuable addition to the Wiki knowledge base. Sam at LI-COR (talk) 15:32, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Please check Autodesk_Maya for an example on a C-class software article as an example. It contains an explanation on its uses. Retartist (talk) 12:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

• After reviewing the Maya page, it occurs to me that their Components listed in the Overview section look very similar to the IS article. Are you recommending that I dismember the "Features section" entirely or would adding some kind of overview section (similar to how the Maya page is set up) explaining a basic workflow make this page seem less commercial to you? Please keep in mind that Maya and IS Lite are very, very different. Maya is a huge, complicated, expensive software, and IS Lite is small, free, and basic.

This is a very simple article. My hope is that scientists in the field will add any additions they deem necessary once the article is published.

PS: What do you think about the sources? How should I address the quandary in my previous post?

Thanks - Sam at LI-COR (talk) 14:27, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I Recommend that you add an overview section explaining the workflow and what Western Blot imagery is. I just think that having an article with a features section and little or no overview is not enough. Concerning the sources I recommend that you use some of the further reading or external links as sources. AS LONG AS: they refer to the software, they are preferably third party and generally WP:RS. Inline citations are hard maybe refer to: WP:REF? If you can't inline cite the sources you can still have them in a bibliography section. Hope you can improve the article.- Retartist (talk) 22:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

• I’m glad you were able to stay with me through this back and forth. This article is important information that should be included in Misplaced Pages, so I’m happy to have an editor paying attention to it.

After this talk, I have a grasp on what needs to be done. I will work on the edits we talked about and get back to you on your talk page when I’m ready to resubmit.

BTW, I noticed that neuroscience and graduate studies are in your plans for the future. I'd be remiss not to point out what a small world it would be if you ended up using IS someday (or ImageJ) - let me know if that happens, I'll be here awhile…

Best on your exams. Thanks for helping and I'll talk with you soon - Sam at LI-COR (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad to be of help. Looking forward to the improved version - Retartist (talk) 22:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• The edits are up, but I have not resubmitted the document.

Please tell me if this looks like the Overview section you had in mind.

As far as the sources go, there was really only one of the External links (Densitometry Tutorial for Image Studio Lite...) that I could move to the References section (and it should have been there to begin with, it is an introduction to IS Lite and links to a tutorial already included in the References). The other External links are to other WB analysis software or to the IS software page. The Further Reading links just say that they used IS lite to do some analysis; they don't really explain much about the process from the software end. I think the third party references listed provide validity and context for the article (I even saw the Luke Miller blog post cited in a Master's Thesis), and I hope they will be okay without being inline references. There doesn't appear to be a good way to do this.

If you have time, I would greatly appreciate a thumbs-up or thumbs-down review prior to resubmitting the article. Best - Sam at LI-COR (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I currently don't have time to do a detailed check. From a brief look; the article needs to have the first paragraph in the overview section moved up to the lead or the whole section reduced little bit and moved up to the lead. Have you read the manual of style? It currently WOULDNT be AF'D if it was a full article but I feel that it needs some stylistic clean up and maybe one more third party reference. I think if you submitted it; it might pass depending on the editor. I want it to pass and be a B-CLASS article. You could ask at the teahouse for any final tweaks but I have made my recommendations. Good Luck - Retartist (talk) 23:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

• I believe the division of content between the Lead and the Overview fits Wiki’s Manual of Style, but it may be time to get some more opinions. I’ll be resubmitting soon. Again, thanks for the help! - Sam at LI-COR (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL

Please do not call other editors "fools", as you did at User talk:Shyam Sundar Mandal. Insulting other users is discouraging and unnecessary. Passengerpigeon (talk) 09:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Juror misconduct, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Influence (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Useitorloseit_and_Ta-Nehisi_Coates_-_request_for_topic_ban. Thank you. Gamaliel (talk) 22:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

suggestion

Thanks for your support of the Violence against men category. Just a quick suggestion - it would make your case stronger if your provided a rationale for supporting the category. Thanks!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Your request at WP:PERM/RV

Do you want to reply there? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Kindly stop templating NorthBySouthBaranof

We don't template the regulars. In addition, I'm looking at NorthBySouthBaranof's contribs and am not finding any personal attacks nor inappropriate talk page refactoring. Can you please provide some diffs to support your warnings? Certainly simply telling someone they're being inappropriate without any specifics doesn't help the situation. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

We can template the regulars WP:TR, so i do, i don't discriminate based on time spent on the 'pedia. How about this? Clear attack on me instead of my argument. Retartist (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yet attempting to engage them in discussion might have helped the situation, while templating twice over apparently the same thing doesn't do anything but escalate it. NorthBySouthBaranof's edit was a tad uncivil, but the edit to your comment was justified. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 04:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

They could have just retracted ONLY their names, THEIR changes change the tone of my post, the quote "the woman who have been harassed just yell the loudest and make a bigger fuss" does not violate BLP, it just violates Norths opinion so they retracted it. The second quote could have been factored like this: "I was referring to the two who do (NAMES RETRACTED)" in fact i'm going to do that now. Retartist (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

1. Statements that violate WP:BLP can be removed. North did that. That's not even close to template-worthy. Again, you might want to read over WP:BLP; we have to tread very lightly with such topics.

2. That quote right there is difficult to parse but does read as specifically applying to the noted women. It includes them in a greater category, then makes an unsupported claim against that category. Even if you didn't intend it to be that way, it's unnecessarily inflammatory. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If he can have a quote of it, i can have my statement Retartist (talk) 05:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

North did not include the BLP violating element in the post (i.e. what I said "includes them in a greater category"), but clipped around your post to avoid that. Do not readd BLP violations. If you want to edit your post to simply slander an entire category of people instead without making a connection to any individual to avoid the BLP violation, mind that that's really not helping the discussion in any way either. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

HE retracted statements then quoted them, ill be back in 1 hr Retartist (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC) His retracting of my statements make my OP look like a sexist rant, its not. I was identifying a group of people by their common trait: their gender. If negatively criticizing a group of peoples tactics is sexist because the group all happen to be woman, then there is rampant misandry in this thread. Retartist (talk) 06:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

BLP discretionary sanctions alert

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:GamerGate". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Retartist (talk) 07:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Heya, got a quesiton

Hey there. So and thank you for including me in the Dispute Resolution thing. The thing im hoping for, is could you tell me what all happens during a resolution? Considering im new to WP. Thank you if you can. PseudoSomething (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, In a dispute Resolution you first make a statement (which you have done) then a unrelated mediator mediates the discussion at hand. Just participate in the discussion and you will be fine. Retartist (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Nip Gamergate in the bud. Thank you. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning GamerGate (controversy), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Retartist/hall of infamy

A tag has been placed on User:Retartist/hall of infamy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done for the following reason:

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Misplaced Pages criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Retartist/hall of infamy

User:Retartist/hall of infamy, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Retartist/hall of infamy and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Retartist/hall of infamy during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:25, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

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.

Gamaliel (talk) 20:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

For trying to make sense of nonsense. DSA510 Pls No H8 06:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

arbcom page

Here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Applying GamerGate controversy sanctions on Shirtstorm

Can you explain why these are applicable? I'm not familiar with "GamerGate" and now I'm wondering just what I've wandered into after picking an article to clean up off the NPOV problem list. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 06:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I know about the Matt Taylor article, and "Shirtstorm" - but I know nothing at all about "Gamergate", and have no clue about what a controversy about a British scientist's shirt has to do with "video game culture". Both may be related to sexism, but there is a lot of sexism in the world without the two incidents being related in any way. Please explain. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

since gamergate is so large and amorphous, shirtstorm has been absorbed as part of the culture war. dont be too worried as Time (the publication) falls under these sanctions as well. Think of it as gamergate is a big part of a culture war against the sort of people who caused shirtgate Retartist (talk) 07:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the tag from Matt Taylor (scientist) because I can see next to nothing (apart from news outlets very occasionally discussing them within the same article) linking him to gamergate. Applying general sanctions there will do more harm than good. Sam Walton (talk) 09:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

 Great! Retartist (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

In other words, the same factions of POV-pushers that have hit GamerGate controversy were expected to hit Shirtstorm. I owe you an explanation: I had found Shirtstorm in the NPOV dispute list, and went to it thinking I would both improve Misplaced Pages and learn something in the process since I had never seen the term before. After two of my edits with detailed summaries asking for discussion were largely reverted with short summaries and no discussion, I left two somewhat sharp comments on the other user's talk page. Imagine my surprise when the first response I received was this. In any case, whether the sanctions were appropriate or an example of WP:IAR, they appear to have immediately helped and there are now actual discussions beginning on the talk page, including from a user who previously had been one of the most-reverted POV-pushers on the article. Thank you. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I also note that the special sanctions have since been removed, since WP:NEWBLPBAN applies. Again, thanks for your help. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 23:00, 24 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 22:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Found something

I came across this link on the Web. You might be interested in looking at the 4 "archive.today" screenshots. starship.paint ~ regal 02:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

already been brought up, there is nothing in this because it not a personal relationship. Its just tarc having an anti-gg bias like me having a pro-gg bias. Retartist (talk) 03:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

although if he claims to be neutral, then bring it up Retartist (talk) 03:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand your point...

...but the new User clearly committed vandalism. He is now aware you are keeping an eye on him, so I will desist from anything further. The most effectual Bob Cat (talk) 07:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate evidence limits

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.
• Despite the increase, it is highly desirable to be as succinct as possible. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Acknowledged Retartist (talk) 00:03, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate arbitration case: evidence and workshop

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)

Re: GG PD

Check the collapsed table immediately below that one (labeled "Ryulong remedy calculations") - the result calculations for Ryulong got complicated, so they were moved to their own space. Random the Scrambled 23:51, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks :) --RetΔrtist (разговор) 05:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate closed

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:

(i) Accounts with a clear shared agenda may be blocked if they violate the sockpuppetry policy or other applicable policy;

(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.

4.1) NorthBySouthBaranof (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

5.1) Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

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.

6.2) TaraInDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for treating Misplaced Pages as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.

7.2) Tarc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

7.3) Tarc (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.

8.2) The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

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.

9) TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is admonished for treating Misplaced Pages as if it were a battleground and advised to better conduct themselves.

10.1) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Tutelary (talk · contribs) from editing under the Gamergate general sanctions. This ban is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban. Tutelary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

12) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic bans preventing ArmyLine (talk · contribs), DungeonSiegeAddict510 (talk · contribs), and Xander756 (talk · contribs) from editing under the Gamergate general sanctions. The topic bans for these three editors are converted to indefinite restrictions per the standard topic ban.

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.

14.1) Loganmac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.

15) Willhesucceed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 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.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Reversion question

Could you explain what changed between and that led you to believe your reversion had consensus? Hipocrite (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I was WP:BOLD and made a change, i was challenged, then consensus was formed after discussion on the talk page. No need to question me on it RetΔrtist (разговор) 05:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess I'm wondering why you made the change twice. Hipocrite (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I dont know, i think i forgot i was reverted once. But its all done now RetΔrtist (разговор) 06:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)