User talk:Cavalierman

While I am somewhat discouraged by the treatment of and by some of my fellow editors, I have decided to remain on wikipedia in a limited role.

Cavalierman, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Cavalierman! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Samwalton9 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Complaint

You can make your case at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents if you like. But I'd recommend letting it pass. Arkon (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I will follow your advice if thats what I am supposed to do. But I dont even understand what Im being charged with in the first place. And I dont like being pushed around. And yes, I go to a a top tier school out East which is why I probably sound more educated than most people on here. IT sounds like I am being accused of lying about how long Ive been on here. A lot of people think I am older than I am from the way I carry myself but I didn't realize it also translates to online too. Cavalierman (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arkon: Haha he took it down bro. Thanks for your help. Cavalierman (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arkon: Well I am looking at your talk page and he is still making comments like a little girl. Is it ok if I make a complaint at that link you sent me? I wont do it if you prefer I don't. Cavalierman (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's from around the time he fixed his post. Not worth the bother in my opinion, just keep trying to find articles to edit that you are interested in. Arkon (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Arkon: OK thanks again for all your help. Cavalierman (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Taking Flyer22 to Jboard

Unfortunately I have beem forced to take Flyer22 to Jboard. I have been taught in life: stand up for yourself, dont let people push you around, be fair, treat everyone with respect and expect the same. But when someone keeps coming at you and they wont stop sometimes you have to go after them hard. To teach them a lesson. A lesson in humility.

Cavalierman (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, what is the Jboard? Second, trying to "teach them a lesson" is a terrible attitude to have on Wikipedia. This is a collaborative editing project and when there are disagreements, we try to work them out. Finally, when an editor with years of experience corrects you, it might benefit you if you listen to her advice and read up on the policies she refers you to. I'll leave you some links that might help. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. MarnetteD|Talk 04:45, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Samsara 06:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Cavalierman! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:49, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost)
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Find a mentor at The Co-op

Hi there! Cavalierman, you are invited to The Co-op, a gathering place for editors where you can find mentors to help you build and improve Wikipedia. If you're looking for an editor who can help you out, please join us!

I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 09:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE

Earlier this week, I was accused of being a sock-puppet by another editor, Flyer22. After numerous investigations I have been CLEARED of being a sock-puppet and the editor who accused me admitted she was wrong. I consider the matter closed and appreciate everyone's efforts. After considering my options, I have decided I am willing to move forward without pursuing any punishment toward any editor. I am here to create an encyclopedia and work with other editors even if we have a disagreement at times. The only final point I would like to make, is false accusations can damage a person's reputation. So please be mindful before you accuse someone without evidence. This is general advice to everyone. Cavalierman (talk) 18:50, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think the main danger to your rep was the way you behaved when you were accused. you got all fighty and how-dare-you and talked shit right back. i totally get why you might respond this way, and not saying it means you're bad or something. but you could have acted like it wasn't happening. be cool, like they can't touch you. Dingsuntil (talk) 16:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not abuse rollback as you did on [[Cory Williams]] and [[Molux]], or it will be removed from your account.--[[User:JacktheHarry|JacktheHarry]] ([[User talk:JacktheHarry|talk]]) 18:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Stuff you should know

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding 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, 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.

Bosstopher (talk) 09:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Further clarification of the 30/500 rule

Move this to WP:VP. User talk pages are no places for an RFC. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I recently voted on a discussion at the Gamergate talk page. Admins were asking to either close or continue a discussion, and when I added my support to continue, (literally three or four words) my comments were not just deleted, but refactored in such a way as to count as a vote to close. It is my understanding that this is not how the 30/500 editing rule is supposed to work, but I may be wrong. Could I have some clarification please? (see below for a clearer explanation of the situation) Cavalierman (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cavalierman! Would you please provide diffs of your comment being refactored to count as a vote of close? Thanks in advance. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 07:43, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Peter, this proves to be impossible, as the conversation was closed and my "comments" (one word) were reverted. No record of my "edits" exist. Elsewhere there appears to be conversation in regards to females who were targeted by 3rd party uninvolved trolls, in an effort to make it seem as if this harassment stemmed from proponents of the GG hashtag. Any and all harassment occurred many many months ago, and from all evidence, 99% of the harassment was done by opponents of GG, in an effort to paint the hashtag in an unfavorable light. A most unfortunate situation indeed, and one I am sure you are just as eager as I am to rectify. My only intention is to encourage discussion so we may fix this problem. Sadly, a small group of editors are attempting to squash any and all discussion/editing of the GG page, which currently has major POV and accuracy issues. I hope that by working together we can fix this obviously broken article.

One idea I had was to restrict editing to veteran WP editors who have had zero involvement/edits on the GG page. In other words, continue the 30/500 restriction with the added restriction of only allowing access to editors who have not yet edited the page. Thanks for your help Peter. Cavalierman (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki has history. You can review your edits and the reverts of them here. — Strongjam (talk) 03:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is obviously a major confusion here. Could we please settle the confusion in layman's terms? Cavalierman (talk) 03:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment was my comments were not just deleted, but refactored in such a way as to count as a vote to close, but you couldn't provide diffs because this proves to be impossible, as the conversation was closed and my "comments" (one word) were reverted. No record of my "edits" exist.. The link I provided lets you view the history of the page. If you click the diff link next to each edit you can see what was added, removed or changed. I'm not seeing anyone changing your comment from oppose to support, only editors completely removing your comments. — Strongjam (talk) 03:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

==============================

The following Gamergate Controversy editing restriction is now being put to a preliminary opinion vote:

Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion

This RfC seeks to establish preliminary consensus on the question: Should the gamergate controversy page and all related talk pages be restricted to editors with 30/500 edits and who also have not yet edited any Gamergate related page, ie restricted to only uninvolved, experienced editors ?

================================

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

30/500

Hi Cavalierman, I noticed your edits at Talk:Gamergate controversy. As you speculate, those with under 30/500 are not allowed to participate in the talk page even in terms of consensus building. While I am assured by, Zad68, the Admin imposing the restriction, that it is not a "ban" on editors per se, it seems that the best advice for you at this point is to not contribute to that Article or its Talk pages (plural) until you have achieved 500 edits. Hope this helps. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zad68 Actually, it does not help as much as you might think. I'm either banned from participating or not. Which is it? Cavalierman (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: The restriction was placed under the discretionary sanctions which apply to the topic, and can be seen in the log here. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Right Ryk72 . Am I banned from participating on the GG Talk Page in any capacity or not? Simple question. Cavalierman (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot participate on the GG talk page until you have racked up 500 edits. Binksternet (talk) 07:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Hi Cavalierman, As near as I can tell (and I'm not an Admin), it's a page level restriction which allows contributions from editors with less than "30 days and 500 edits" to be summarily removed from the Article & Talk pages. It's not a "ban", so things like WP:BANEX don't apply, and you shouldn't be blocked for a few edits. But, more than a few edits, especially once advised of the restriction, are likely to be seen as disruptive editing and lead to a block. Please note that this is just my understanding of the restriction.

While I realise that the restriction is likely very frustrating for those impacted, it has been tested a number of times at various noticeboards (WP:AN, WP:AE, WP:Village Pump); thus far there has been no consensus for the removal of the restriction. The best advice I can offer is to achieve 500 edits. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 07:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryk72 Thank you for your civility. It would seem to me that voting on a consensus is not editing, I also am curious as to what gives a non-admin authority to remove or refactor my comments/vote. Cavalierman (talk) 07:57, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cavalierman, I agree with you as far as the "common English" meaning of "editing", but here it means "any change" really. We use edit (noun) to describe the change to a page (in any WP:namespace), and to edit (verb) for making such changes.

At a very, very high level, the authority to refactor comments on that Talk page (as I understand it) is:

Arbitration committee decision WP:ARBGG authorises WP:AC/DS discretionary sanctions;
Discretionary sanctions authorise uninvolved administrators to place sanctions (on users; blocks & topic bans), and restrictions (on pages);
Page level restriction (logged at WP:AC/DS/Log) limits the the Article & Talk pages from being edited by editors with less than 30 days & 500 edits (by authorising editors to remove those edits).

Hope this helps to explain things; please feel free to seek alternate opinions. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 08:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should There Exist Further Restriction of Gamergate Controversy Page Beyond 30/500?

This RfC seeks to establish preliminary consensus on the question: Should the gamergate controversy page and all related talk pages be restricted to editors with 30/500 edits and who also have not yet edited any Gamergate related page, ie restricted to only uninvolved, experienced editors ?

Cavalierman (talk) 09:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this. WP:RFCs do not belong on users' talk pages. The 30/500 was part of a discretionary sanction and this should be discussed on the relevant noticeboards like WP:AE. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Bokhari, Allum (September 25, 2014). "#GamerGate – An Issue With Two Sides". TechCrunch. AOL. Retrieved September 27, 2014.

"-gate, comb. form." OED Online. Oxford University Press, March 2015. Web. June 8, 2015.</ref>

− Kaufman, Scott (November 10, 2014). "Actor Adam Baldwin: #GamerGate defeated the Left, but there will be no parade". RawStory.

August 2015

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Strongjam (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PeterTheFourth Thanks for the reminder! I was not aware of this policy, but now I know. Much appreciated. Cavalierman (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban

Since you were warned of the GamerGate Discretionary Sanction and continue to do things like this, I am indefinitely topic banning you from (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. If you would like to appeal this topic ban, please see this page. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:36, 23 October 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).

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

Request reason:

I have no idea why I am blocked

Decline reason:

As noted below and clearly in your block log, this is a checkuser block and simply cannot be reviewed publically. I would suggest direct correspondence with the blocking admin, or using WP:UTRS. I would suspect that accounts you have used in the past were used inappropriately or have sanctions against them, but you'll need to be more transparent for a non-checkuser to help you. Kuru (talk) 13:11, 24 October 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.

My (limited) understanding of the situation thus far...

OK, I'll try to be concise here. The other day, I edited the Rape On Campus article, it was not a smart edit, and I'll be the first to admit it. Here is the edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=A_Rape_on_Campus&diff=prev&oldid=687030309

Soon after, I found that I was indefinitely topic by Guerillero from ALL gender related articles, including Gamergate, which I have not even edited for 6 months. Part of the reason I have not edited Gamergate is to get the required number of edits in the RIGHT WAY. It is a topic that interests me, I will be the first to admit, but before I dive in, I want to make sure I can contribute constructively. That's why I've made no attempt to circumvent the 30/500 rule with a bunch of pointless edits. So Guerillero indefinitely topic bans me from Gamergate and all related articles even though I have been nowhere near Gamergate in months. So here is what I did - I went to his page and asked him, very civily, to at least reconsider the LENGTH of the ban. No dice. His one-word summary? NOPE. THEN, I log into wikipedia today and find that I have been COMPLETELY BLOCKED by Courcelles for no reason whatsoever - NONE. No reason given. What is going on here? Why do so many people have an axe to grind??? I am not saying I am without blame, but I would think an indefinite topic ban is a pretty severe penalty! Especially for what I did (look at the edit please) And the block leaves me speechless! Why? Why wouldnt someone have the decency to tell me WHY I was blocked??? Can someone please help me out here.

I am simply asking people to be reasonable. Give me a topic ban, fine, but make it a couple weeks, or even a month. Give me some assignments to do, some articles to edit. Allow me to contribute constructively to the project, and don't ban me from subjects I am interested in just because of a silly edit.

And for goodness sake, why the block? The block literally makes ZERO sense. Nothing I have done is remotely block-worthy. Cavalierman (talk) 07:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the template that you see when you try and edit says, you are checkuserblocked. You are, and always have been, a sockpuppet. I can easily show the trail to anyone with both checkuser and oversight access. Courcelles (talk) 07:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For crying out loud, PLEASE DO SO. Show it to someone - anyone - that has access. I would love to see what you are talking about. I've never - not once- used multiple accounts. I have had accounts in the past (which I no longer use), but as I understand it, that is NOT sockpuppetry (although I could be wrong). Again, find someone to back up your claim here and I will walk away. Otherwise please point me in the direction of where I need to go to appeal this. This is the second time this has happened (I was accused of being a sockpuppet before and CLEARED) and I am starting to get irritated. I realize it is not personal, and the computer or something is doing the block, but you can understand my frustration. Cavalierman (talk) 09:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please help

@Kuru: Kuru, can you please help me with this process? You seem to be reasonable, and I am not a vandal. I'd like at least the opportunity to plead my case. I realize wikipedia is somewhat political, and I've ran afoul of those who make the rules. But if someone really looks at my case, you will see I am not lying. I just don't know where to begin, and the appeal process is confusing. Thank you so much in advance. Cavalierman (talk) 05:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that once this has been handled by a CheckUser who has found a connection between your account and another one, only the CheckUsers have access to the data required to confirm things. It isn't a political problem, but a technical one - for whatever reason, you have been found to be operating two accounts. If this is in error, the people to contact are the functionaries team, at Wikipedia:Functionaries - they have the ability to check the technical data and consider your situation. I'm sure that they will be willing to look into things and will help if there is a mistake. - Bilby (talk) 05:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilby: OK thank you. I know I can get this sorted out, I just was not sure of the process. Even though my account is blocked I should still be able to contact them correct? I just email them I am assuming.

Yes, just use email. Other people would be happy to help, but the CheckUsers have access to private information as part of the role, and if it isn't your information it will be someone else's. Accordingly we can't do anything directly to help. The functionaries, though, have the correct level of access and can look into this. - Bilby (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]