Jump to content

User talk:ArmyLine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

Welcome to Wikipedia! Listed below are some brief introductions containing all the basics needed to use, comment on, and contribute to Wikipedia.

If you want to know more about a specific subject, Help:Help explains how to navigate the help pages.

Where next?

  • If you wish to express an opinion or make a comment, Where to ask questions will point you in the correct direction.
  • If you would like to edit an article, the Basic tutorial will show you how, and How to help will give you some ideas for things to edit.
  • If you would like to create a new article, Starting an article will explain how to create a new page, with tips for success and a link to Wikipedia's Article Wizard, which can guide you through the process of submitting a new article to Wikipedia.
  • For more support and some friendly contacts to get you started, the Editors' Welcome page should be your next stop!

See also

Good luck and happy editing. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:39, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ArmyLine, you are invited to the Teahouse

Teahouse logo

Hi ArmyLine! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Hajatvrc (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Information icon Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Anita Sarkeesian. Thank you. Bbb23 (talk) 18:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My citations were poorly referenced? I investigated the claims myself. ArmyLine (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Both were blogs, which are not reliable sources.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be acceptable?ArmyLine (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That site is no better than a blog, and the opinion itself is found at examiner.com, which is a blacklisted site at Wikipedia.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Information icon Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

  1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
  2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP

Please carefully read this information:

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 Wikipedia, 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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
Okay, but I've edited the Gamergate controversy article once and have relegated most of my contributions to suggestions on the talk page.--ArmyLine (talk) 03:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WProject Feminism

Stop with the unfounded accusations against WikiProject Feminism. If you continue this uncivil disruption, you risk being blocked. Dreadstar ☥ 03:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What unfounded accusations have I made?--ArmyLine (talk) 03:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this fits the bill. And here is why. Dreadstar ☥ 03:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was mistaken about what the edit totals meant. However, I still do not think that it is appropriate for a feminist group, some of whose members are demonstratively aligned with one side of this controversy, to have this as a "mid-importance" article. If you think that an article about a movement which has antifeminist elements can be fairly edited by a feminist group, then we can agree to disagree on that account.--ArmyLine (talk) 03:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, we'll be fine then, glad your assumption has been corrected. As for the latter, I go by Wikipedia Policy and not groupthink. Dreadstar ☥ 03:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never accused you of going by groupthink. If people who happen to be feminists want to edit the article and come by it organically - and the law of averages says some will - so much the better. I just don't think this is a good article for WikiProject Feminism because of how involved the majority of feminists are on one side of this discussion. I don't think either the article or WikiProject Feminism has profited from this so far.--ArmyLine (talk) 03:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not me, I meant that others may operate by groupthink, that I go by policy rather than judging a group. AFAICT, WP:Feminism has had very little input into that article, I think one editor from there has contributed. It's insufficient evidence to say they have, quite the opposite in fact. And there would be nothing wrong with it if they did have a lot of input, as long as policy is followed. Dreadstar ☥ 04:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My suspicions stemmed from the fact that a lot of the editors seem to have taken unsolicited pot-shots at "gaters" which, regardless of justification, seemed like a similar narrative from many independent contributors. My initial suspicions against WPF were mistaken, but I do not think it is acceptable that frequent editors of an article covering divisive issue are openly attacking one of the involved parties seem to have gone largely unreprimanded.--ArmyLine (talk) 04:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there should be attacks from any 'side' of the dispute, I hope you'll assist in maintaining civility and focus on the editorial content of the article and not on other editors when posting to the article's talk page; discussions on editor behavior should follow WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, and not ever take place on an article talk page. 17:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
I have found out that over 20% of all edits to the Gamergate page come from WikiProject:Feminism talk page participants. I will not expound on these findings any further and include them in the interest of transparency.--ArmyLine (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your assumptions and your interpretation of data are faulty; there are only two editors on your list who are members of WP:Feminism; one of them has 4 edits to Gamergate conspiracy, the other has one. This is in no way 20%. And again, even if it were 20%, there would be no problem with that - the issue would be one of "are the edits per WP:POLICY", not a numbers game. Dreadstar ☥ 17:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, the editor with the majority of edits to GG in your list - who is not a member of WP:Feminism - made the last of their two edits to Talk:WP:Feminism over a year ago, long before the GG article ever even existed. Just because someone edited a project page (e.g. you or me, in this case) doesn't mean they are members of that project. Dreadstar ☥ 17:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Running around quoting edit statistics is a faulty methodology in this case, I'd strongly recommend you stop doing it before it becomes disruptive. And in light of your comments on other editor's talk pages, like the below interaction, you need to work on your approach with other editors. And you need to review the "Guidance for editors' section of Discretionary sanctions to assure you are following best practices. This is something a lot of editors on GG need to do actually... Dreadstar ☥ 21:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dreadstar, I think you're taking the wrong approach with this user, and when you threaten to block them in your first post to them without noticing that they are particular new to how things work here, you effectively bite them and fail to assume good faith. Sure, that might be a good way to make sure that they get the point, but I advocate a more subtle style. This editor ultimately noticed something on a WikiProject edit count, and thought it to be wrong, so they asked for clarification on the aforementioned wikiproject talk page. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. You're supposed to ask for help/clarification if you don't understand something. In fact, I would be a bit concerned that people didn't ask for clarification, and just went on their way without a care in the world. (Though this is heavily implied by WP:IAR, besides the point.) In particular, the way that they informed the users that they should voluntarily stop editing the article in question is not something they need to 'work on'. No swearing, no blunt language even, no misunderstandings, just a request that the editor is free to deny. You're an administrator and when you threaten to block someone on first offense of a good faith action, that ruffles some things for editors; including myself. Though I will add that clarifying what Wikiproject Feminism's edits actually mean is appreciated and something that has become a strawman for Pro-GG to attack. Tutelary (talk) 23:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't tell you to take it to ANI because I thought it would boomerang, I just honestly didn't have the time or energy to look into it myself. And bug off Tutelary, your advice is terrible, my strict version was the way to go with this. Dreadstar ☥ 02:50, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Re: Your edits to the "Gamergate controversy""

Leave me alone.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there's anything I can do to help, please let me know. I will not make any more comments on your talk page.--ArmyLine (talk) 21:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration declined

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Feel free to see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, → Call me Hahc21 21:34, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GG / Tarc

Hey. Could you please chime in on Tarc's talk page and request for him to be more civil. He's been consistently aggressive and I would like for him to see it's a real problem, not just one person being overly sensitive. Willhesucceed (talk) 08:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look into what Tarc has written. In the meantime, you might want to notify one of the admins. It seems DreadStar is curating the talk page right now, so Dreadstar's talk page might be a good place to voice your concerns. I'd advise you compile specific examples of Tarc's disruptive behavior, to save effort on Dreadstar's part. If they are more severe as when I voiced unfounded suspicions about WP:F, then it is not unreasonable to expect equivocal or greater action by Dreadstar.--ArmyLine (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: You're right, it's worse than I expected. I've posted my opinion on Tarc's behavior, though it seems that outside of admin sanctions there's little that can be done.--ArmyLine (talk) 02:25, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm deliberately putting this here rather than creating a new section. It would be better if you didn't give the opposition any more 'evidence' or reason to topic ban you. Titanium Dragon made this unfortunate mistake which you're making here. Tutelary (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, it won't bother me if I'm banned for a frivolous reason. ;)--ArmyLine (talk) 00:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, right on the mark. I appreciate your concern, but this won't be an issue.--ArmyLine (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "GamerGate (controversy)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 27 October 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia: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) 19:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And here is my response.--ArmyLine (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

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

Red to Blue

Ya should put something into your userpage, so it'll change your moniker to blue. It's my theory that blue names, have an easier time on the 'pedia then red names. See Redshirt (character) article. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Done. We'll see how it goes.--ArmyLine (talk) 15:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

As a result of your inappropriate behavior at ANI, you are topic-banned for one year from edits and discussion regarding GamerGate, broadly construed, under BLP discretionary sanctions. Acroterion (talk) 00:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but you'll need to ban User:TaraInDC for making actual libelous statements against Zoe Quinn's ex-boyfriend.--ArmyLine (talk) 00:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And you are already violating you topic ban at ANI. Stop now, or you will be blocked. Acroterion (talk) 00:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So should I notify him or will this be dealt with? It's not difficult.--ArmyLine (talk) 00:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the problematic section, FYI.--ArmyLine (talk) 00:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your observations on the subject's sexual behavior are far in excess of Tara's comment, unhelpful though it was. That comment was the proximate cause of your topic ban. Acroterion (talk) 01:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Simple comments about cheating are not about "sexual behavior", but it's fine, the truth finds a way.--ArmyLine (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The "cheating" comments were due to libel being posted on the front page, but I'm not the one to discuss this with anymore.--ArmyLine (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You've been topic banned. I strongly, strongly recommend you not mention the events, the article or anything concerning it, even in reply to me or anyone else. Not here, not at ANI, nowhere at en.wikipedia.org. I really don't want to see you blocked, but that is what will happen if you don't drop it. The spotlight is already on you. Now is good time to back away from it. I know it is tough, and I recommend logging off for a bit and reading some news, play a game or something. But you need to stop instantly. Dennis - 2¢ 01:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine, this will likely be my last edit to Wikipedia. The definition of insanity comes to mind, so I think I'm out. Appreciate it though and good luck.--ArmyLine (talk) 04:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia: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—

Thanks,--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Use diffs and not the Archive.today links. This isn't Reddit.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for breaching your GG topic ban with your recent postings at WP:ANI.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia: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, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 22:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 [private evidence] 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)[reply]

There is apparently some perception that your topic ban extends to arbitration: that was not my intention, and I've advised Callanecc that you should be allowed to participate, in my opinion. Acroterion (talk) 00:09, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Per this discussion [1] the topic ban does not prohibit participation in arbitration. Acroterion (talk) 04:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)[reply]

February 2015

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for a renewed breach of your Gamergate topic ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ArmyLine (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Decline reason:

This was clearly a breach of your topic ban. For the avoidance of doubt, you are completely banned from all Gamergate discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ArmyLine (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Phil Knight has a history of supporting nebulous rationales behind blocks. See his logic behind blocking Tabascoman77 while desperately defending Tarc's actions. Could we get someone uninvolved here, please? ArmyLine (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

  • the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
  • the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Bbb23 (talk) 05:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You were trying to raise an issue about an administrator and another user blocked because of Gamergate-related conduct, so of course that entire issue is also Gamergate-related. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You were supporting accusations against me of "[bringing] off-wiki coordinated Gamergate trolling to the drama boards" and claimed that was the reason for the block earlier. --ArmyLine (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly care whether this particular instance of drama trolling of yours was coordinated off-wiki, but judging from prior experience I dare say it probably was. Either way, it was a breach of your topic ban. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also notice you were fast to close the AN:I request because "Subject of section has been unblocked by User:Beeblebrox." when you knew perfectly well this was a conduct issue about calling users "whores". It seems this sort of "break the rules when it serves the Wikipedia" thing is common to both you, Gamaliel (he's the one who doubled down on the blackmailing oddly enough) and JzG.
At the end of the day, it's the good contributors who are leaving and the bureaucrats who think a little rule breaking or misrepresentation every here and there is okay if it's "for the Wikipedia" who end up the lowest common denominator. Perhaps Wikipedia would do better to pander to its own userbase for a change.--ArmyLine (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is pretty interesting to me. My block was carried out in no way related to gamergate, but I was given an ultimatum that was related to gamergate. So the ANI action seems to be about the conduct of an Admin, not about his affiliation with the topic in question. Another very heavy-handed ban.... TyTyMang (talk) 07:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, though JzG's almost mafiosa-tier smugness is disconcerting. That and the sudden *poofing* in of four separate endorsers with collective chips on their shoulders does make me curious. --ArmyLine (talk) 06:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to explain. I was active on AN/I at the time, something you can easily verify from my contrib history. I didn't see anything else interesting so I decided to visit AN and saw the review. I've largely stayed away from the Gamergate topic area (although I have observed that many supporters seem to be their own worst enemy, which isn't to say opponents haven't sometimes been a problem and I'm actually in far less disagreement with the arbcom case than other). But a quick read made the review seem so silly, I felt I had to comment. This is an unfortunate tendency of mine, you can see that just before I was pointing out to someone else in a completely unrelated area although arising from ANI that they were similarly talking nonsense (socking to say they never socked). But it has nothing to do with any chip on my shoulder, simply the fact I dislike what I see as utter silliness. Actually, topic bans are one area I often have a problem with. I've never understand why some people have such problems understanding that a topic ban means they should stay the hell away from the topic area. (I'm not saying there aren't borderline cases, but asking about someone else's proposed topic ban in that area isn't such a borderline case as I've said a few times now on AN.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, though when now six separate users show up and are either more concerned about bellyaching about REDACTED (and frequent editors of REDACTED), associates of Gamaliel, or associates of JzG it seems like too much of a happy accident for my liking. I believe one even either turned a blind eye or cheered on (depending on your interpretations) the actions of one User:NorthBySouthBaranof when he flagrantly violated his REDACTED topic ban. It seems unusual that all these angry people with cloning vat politics would step out of the ether and start dogpiling over one relatively obscure editor on AN, that's all.--ArmyLine (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen User_talk:DD2K? He scrubbed his page recently but a few revisions back should show that he's not exactly one to be shouting down users with accusations of SPAing. I won't link directly to it because otherwise "my topic ban" gets triggered and starts crying or whatever they seem to afraid of.--ArmyLine (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately you got targeted for daring to bring into question the actions of a longterm disruptive admin. His history can be seen here. http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showforum=44. It is not surprising that many admins will jump to support him, if indirectly, even if the user initiating your block request is violating his topic ban to do so, for a query about JzG's admin conduct that is unrelated to Gamergate. I doubt you will be able to use facts to point out the inappropriateness of your ban due to these double standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.52.193.34 (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This IP just got banned by Cailil for the above post. Be careful about posting on my talk page or mentioning my username, it seems a certain clique is checking me out right now.--ArmyLine (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see he hit on a bit of a sore spot with the clique. :)--ArmyLine (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re a comment above: Wikipedians (as opposed to people whose sole purpose here is advancing the views of the Gamergate cult) would almost certainly recognise the reference to WP:FOOTGUN. Mafioso? Not hardly. There is no cabal, either. Lack of any talent for self-criticism is a large part of the reason for your topic ban. Guy (Help!) 06:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Armyline if you keep casting unfounded aspersions and keep misrepresenting admin actions (which is a core issue in the ARBGG ruling), that week long block may wind up being extended. Abusing your talk page while blocked is grounds for further (escalating) sanction. Furthermore random IPs who swing by out of nowhere with seemingly deep and intense historical knowledge of long term users on WikiPedia are either sock-puppets or trolls. Both of which are blockable. If anybody wants to make a public point of criticizing an admin, or any editor, they can do what you and I and everyone else does - use their own account and stop avoiding scrutiny (that is unless of course they've already been banned)--Cailil talk 11:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you weren't so upset about the accusation of me being a cultist whose "sole purpose here is advancing the views of the CENSORED cult", on the topic of unfounded aspersions. You know, that thing you were responding to.--ArmyLine (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, it got quiet all the sudden. Seems the clique is an eensy bit shy about taking a dose of "self-criticism" when it comes their way. For some reason, I have the feeling certain toxic personalities are circling my page like carrion birds, so I'm hesitant to say they just didn't notice that little "call-out" :) --ArmyLine (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for not being here to build the encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This block has been imposed because ever since your Gamergate topic ban, you have been doing nothing else on Wikipedia but engaging in aggressive rhetorics, casting aspersions and raising specious complaints against other editors on matters related to that area of conflict. In these four months, you have made precisely zero constructive edits to the encyclopedia. Note that the first year of this indefinite block counts as a discretionary sanction under the Gamergate Arbcom decision and will be logged as such. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:49, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. The evidence I gathered was cited here. Most would consider having one's work cited to be evidence of a constructive edit.
2. I have made ~50 edits since the topic ban, which was selectively metered out for "battlefield behavior" despite being logged as a BLP transgression. It's worth mentioning that this was after another user mentioned and defamed a person by name.
3. I frequently focus on one topic or another when I have the chance. In this case it was logging and reporting admin misconduct.
4. Considering the relative infrequency of my edits, I find it very suspect that this was purely to protect the encyclopedia. You have a known history with User:Ryulong, whom is a common acquaintance, and so are a involved admin, regardless of the motivations for your blocks.
--ArmyLine (talk) 10:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ArmyLine (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Likely retaliatory for this completely valid ANI, no supporting evidence. I have been editing since 2013 IIRC. Also worth noting: All three of the blocks incurred against me were by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise. May have a history of similar retaliatory indef blocks. ArmyLine (talk) 09:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I'm not turning off talk page access yet, but you're not going to get unblocked by attacking other volunteers. --jpgordon::==( o ) 14:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

ArmyLine, I recommend you read WP:GAB for advice on appealing your block. Until you take some responsibility for actions that led to your block, it is highly unlikely that you will be unblocked. Complaining about other editors/admins' behavior and conspiracies will certainly ensure that your block will not be lifted.

And setting as yourself up as an admin monitor, "logging and reporting admin misconduct", is not viewed as a constructive edit. Writing and editing articles are constructive edits, not policing other editors. Liz Read! Talk! 13:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that Future Perfect at Sunrise has used this as an excuse to block opponents before. Note that a user was indef blocked for reporting Ryulong edit warring, a user who seems to know Future Perfect at Sunrise and was later banned for such behavior. Hence, on paper, we have Future Perfect at Sunrise acting against the community's eventual judgement.
I am willing to diversify my activities but would also like to make a request: I would like the topic ban removed as it was selectively enforced and, while the phrasing was admittedly poor judgement on my part, was not also enacted on a more serious BLP transgression (the user was later given a topic ban by arbcom IIRC). I will not bring it up in the future and am willing to accept no contest on this. I apologize for my frustration earlier, but it my faith in Wikipedia has been shaken after seeing admins in charge of certain articles make disparaging statements about the participants, some of which I know and are far from what they've claimed they are (many are women, yet it is supposed to be a controversy about "misogyny"). I will admit I let my emotions get the better of me, but it's difficult when I perceive the people who are supposed to curate the community picking a side and contributing to the polarization.--ArmyLine (talk) 14:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to believe you're serious. The topic ban was imposed by the Committee. It can't simply be "removed", and a claim of selective enforcement would not be a basis for removal anyway. Moreover, part of the Committee's decision prohibited you from appealing the ban for 12 months after GG was closed, which was on January 29, 2015, less than a month ago. Putting aside what other admins might do, if you continue down this road here, I will revoke your Talk page access.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'The topic ban was imposed by the Committee. It can't simply be "removed"'
Please correct me if I'm wrong: Would the process entail something like this?--ArmyLine (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, the cases are different: MarkBernstein's topic ban was a simple discretionary sanction imposed by one admin, and that admin had it in his own discretion to lift the sanction again, which is what he did. In your case, on the other hand, the original discretionary sanction topic ban was converted into one directly imposed by Arbcom, so only the committee can lift it now (and as you were just told, they already said they won't do that any earlier than in a year). Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I invite anyone intrigued by this unconventional procedure or just curious about the current state of Wikipedia to visit "/r/WikiInAction", which is referred to as the more sinister acronym "Wia". Cheers!--ArmyLine (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Req

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ArmyLine (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Block made by an involved editor with a history of contentious behavior. He claims I am Wikipedia:Here_to_build_an_encyclopedia, but I would be happy to build the encyclopedia after the topic ban expires. The real question is: Is this the encyclopedia "anyone can edit" or only a privileged few? I will also note that accounts on the other side of the controversy, such as MarkBernstein has openly admitted that he is "not here to build the encyclopedia", but has enjoyed the protection of admins who have not only refused to enact action against him but quickly close and boomerang any request enacted by regular users. Why does Bernstein get these special privileges and is able to claim this project "does not deserve to survive" while anyone critical of the hardline stance is instantly banned without procedure? ArmyLine (talk) 23:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Looks like more of the same blame game, without acknowledging any culpability. Since the request doesn't address the reason for the block, I have no choice but to decline. Because this appears to be a pattern, I'm revoking talk page access. Any further appeals should be made via WP:UTRS Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ArmyLine&oldid=1151017222"