User talk:Tabascoman77

Re: TDK

I'll explain this here as well. Talking about anything, based on your own observations, is original research and not allowed. The site is fine to list in the external links section, but we must have outside coverage of what went on with the site to put it in the article itself. This isn't like coming across something that says "The teaser trailer appeared in 10 out of 100 theaters" and then reporting that the trailer appeared in 10% of theaters. That's simple math, which doesn't require observation of any kind.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

On July 27th, the teaser trailer was released, attached to select prints of "The Simpsons Movie". Coincidentally, another viral site (entitled "Anticipation" and seemingly authored by "The Joker") debuted which features the same teaser trailer (in three high-quality HD formats) shown in theaters as well as a "bulletin" showing that "The Joker has been killed" and that "Gotham City PD can stand down". - The teaser appearing with the Simpsons, without a reliable source, is original research. You cannot simply say "it's there". I can't verify that, and since it isn't with every theater, it may not be with mine. Everything else there is original research. If someone wants to see the teaser, they can click the link in the external links section. This is not The Hire page, you do not get any leeway here. Provide a reliable source or stop adding the information. If you continue to add it without a source, I will report you for disruptive behavior.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:51, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for at least supplying a source for the teaser's inclusion with the movie. You still cannot describe the website. We dont' describe trailers, and we don't describe web pages. You need outside coverage discussing the marketing, you cannot do that yourself. It's indiscriminate information, because you do not establish a reason behind its inclusion of the page other than "fans would want to know". It's in the EL section, therefore people can click the link and view it themselves.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I wrote what I wrote. I'm not describing the site. The original poster said that the trailer was released on the site. I corrected the line to erase the trailer description. He's not describing the site, he's mentioning that the teaser has been released on the site (which makes the site legit). That's in-line with the marketing portion of the article.

I'm not familiar with The Hire, but if you cannot find a source for something then it needs to be removed. I'm not planning on rushing over there to delete all the unsourced content (I viewed the page, so if I did that, then about 65-80% would probably have to go), but remember that if you cannot find something in the end, then it probably should be removed. Move it to the talk page and leave a note requesting someone to help find a source for it, if it's becoming difficult to find it yourself. If the only source you've found for something is a forum comment, then it wouldn't be considered a reliable source, per the criteria. If you cite a forum you might as well cite someone's Wikipedia talk page, because that's about as reliable as forums are considered. Anyone can say anything they want on a forum, and it's rather hard to authenticate identities if someone claims to part of the production crew (someone even higher up the tier).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Civility

How are you today? I just wanted to advise you that if you get into a heated disagreement, take some time away from that discussion to cool off. I've gotten embroiled in similar discussions before where other editors don't agree with me, and I know that it's frustrating. I'm not an angel myself, either, as I've spouted my share of uncivil remarks. However, in the long run, it's best to remain objective and to sometimes give in to others' actions. I'm not implying that you should give in here with The Dark Knight, but if no one is willing to give in, the discussion runs into a stalemate. In regard to the present situation, if you are still interested in pursuing the matter future, I would suggest requesting a third opinion. I hope you can be more polite in future discussions; it's only beneficial to be on good terms with other editors with whom you work, even if there has been a specific disagreement or two between you two in the past. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not attacking anybody. I am pointing out the unfortunate characteristics of the other contributors and how it is negatively effectively the ability to post anything resembling context inside of an article. I have already agreed to stop the discussion as there is no more point in discussing the matter at hand. It is getting to the point where I really do not want to contribute anymore because all I have run into is stonewalling and roadblocks in the form of the senior posters. And so it goes, guys. I have nothing more to say, I have vented enough, I've said my piece. I have nothing against any of you guys anymore. Peace. Tabascoman77 8:32 (PST), 30 July 2007

I would just like to say that I sympathize with your frustration. As I said before I think wikipedias image policy is seriously flawed and needs reform. I have had very similar battles with other editors on certain articles and it often feels less like there fighting me becuase they disagree with me and more like enforcing a dogmatic consensus. I have often lamented as you have about just giving up and conspiracy's by senior editors against me.

However, try too look at this in a positive light, at least the image was posted somewhere. I find that if you fight long enough you will eventually get some kinda compromise. You may not get what you want, but at least you won't get what you want.

There are some very unreasonable senior editors on wikipedia, but I find if your patient you will find some reasonable ones as well. Take Erik, I've had some disagreemnets with him, but I found out once I talked to him that he was a fairly reasonable person. It's important to try and be polite in your tone. Sure, I've gotten to the point where I've said screw politeness, but it hardly ever gets me anywhere.

I think the image in the way it was posted in this article felt awkward and out of place. Besides on the main article at this point in production we should probably wait until the film is closer to release to start posting a lot of pictures.

I agree with you however the image is fair use and that those who say it isn't are fools. However, I no longer have the strength to debate wikipedia image policy.

I just want to say that for the future try and be less angry in your tone. I'm not saying you shouldn't get angry if theres justification, just that you'd be suprised how much more receptive people get around here when you ask nicely.annoynmous 17:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

We can start over if you remember that my name is Erik, not Eric. :) I was gone for the weekend, so I was able to come back to TDK with an objective eye. Otherwise, I might have been as combative as Bignole. Considering that he and I have fairly strong credentials (as well as Alientraveller, who was in agreement with us), we tend to profess that we know what we're talking about. Image use has been a slippery slope; I don't always agree with the criteria, as I'm fully aware that multiple movie sites display copyrighted images without a problem. The nature of Wikipedia, I guess, is to make image use relevant. I've actually combated an admin in the past against the deletion of a soundtrack cover image at a film article, but the fact that an admin was going around criticizing usage of non-free images made me mindful of the crackdown. (I call them wikihounds, and I suppose I may have become one myself.) Instead of what that admin and other editors have done by brusquely removing images that have sat in film articles for a while, I'm doing a different approach in which up-and-coming articles have unquestionable rationales for their non-free images. I believe I've done this appropriately at Sunshine (2007 film) and other film articles that I'm developing. I guess my perspective is that if the usage of a non-free image can be critiqued, then the case for it may not be so strong in the first place. I personally think that the IMAX and Batpod images will be longer-lasting in the article than the recent Joker image. Hypothetically, if the Joker image were in the article, it would undoubtedly be replaced in the very near future by something better. Anyway, that's how I've perceived usage of non-free images here on Wikipedia, and we don't have to debate this any further if you don't want to.

In case you haven't noticed, I've taken you off the customer list and placed your ErikBigNolePedia mention in a Miscellaneous section on my user page for the time being. I was not offended by anything that you directed at me or Bignole, I just did not care to have discussion with you based on your tone. My skin is thick enough to weather quite a few criticisms, on Wikipedia or IRL. :) I apologize if you feel shafted by "senior" editors (first time I've been called that, really); we tend to steward the articles as if it could undergo the FAC process any moment. To be honest, Bignole and Alientraveller are terrific people once you get to know them. I think that our methodology can come off as "anal and stubborn", but we just adhere to the rules strongly enough so the work in which we're involved can stand the test of time. I hope we can meet on better terms in the future. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The Dark Knight

Just wanted to let you know that I've been watching the Dark Knight talk page, and I completely agree with you. I wouldn't have pursued the argument as much as you did, and I admire you for keeping it up in the face of opposition from the senior editors. I think that the fact that it is informative about the subject is reason enough to add info to an article, but obviously the others do not think this way. Just wanted to say that I'm on your side if you ever need votes for a poll or anything. Your friend, One Fried Egg 21:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Bonds

Actually, I think the sentence you sent me is pretty good at summarizing what Bond's said. We can quote, but the point of Wikipedia is to try and paraphrases as much as we can, and if we can, then we should. I think the sentence on my talk page works well (I read the quote that was on the main Ecko page as well, just so you know I wasn't simply reading what you wrote).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Probably not, but "Verifiabullys" was a close one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The Hire

I'll take a look when I have time today -- I have a long day today (Monday is the heavyweight of the week for me). Just some quick notes: The Infobox seems to have an overload of information where it should be concise -- can the names be narrowed down, and perhaps have mini-Infoboxes for each short film? That would make it more readable and easier to attribute. I would also suggest ensuring that there is a citation at the end of every paragraph, and also to use Template:Cite news and Template:Cite web. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of any instances of short film articles that are structured well -- you might have to take the lead in this case! :) I think that it may be better to structure the article after a TV show's seasonal article. Take a look at Smallville (season 1) (Bignole's work) and how it lays out the episodes. Instead of Title / Writer(s) / Director(s) / Airdate / Ep. #, you could do something like Title / Main Actor(s) / Director / Vehicle. I would suggest, though, moving all the IMDb links to the end of the article, as external links are supposed to be placed there. Maybe you could ask Bignole to see if he can't edit the table to fit your attributes and color preferences (I'd suggest a similar blue to the short-film poster), so you can put in the short film information. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You can cite one reference multiple times. Take a look at Valkyrie (film)#References -- I'm not sure if you're familiar with the method, but you can see "a b c" letters preceding some lines. Clicking on them separately will show where the reference is cited in the article. Here's a sample breakdown, with code showing:

• <ref name="strike">{{cite news | author=Chris Isidore | url=http://money.cnn.com/2007/09/24/news/companies/gm_uaw_strikedeadline/index.htm?cnn=yes | title=73,000 workers walk in nationwide GM strike | publisher=[[CNN]] | date=[[2007-09-24]] | accessdate=2007-09-24 }}</ref>
• <ref name="strike" />
• <ref name="strike" />
• (and so forth)

Let me know if you are familiar with this method or not. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You might want to ask Bignole about what happened with screenshots for lists of episodes on Wikipedia. (In a nutshell: They were mass-purged due to insufficient fair use rationale.) Basically, if there is real world commentary on an image from the film, then it's more indisputably kept. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can provide context about the look and style of each short film, I think you'll be fine. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome

That's part of what makes editing fun, Tabasscoman - not just learning new stuff and making something interesting, but meeting and helping out other interesting people. I am not sure where else I have helped you out, but it seems like you do the same thing with others. Good job on that. I will see you around. If you run into difficulties, please let me know. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)`

The Joker

You may be pleased to know that we have a picture of the Joker at The Dark Knight (film) -- with critical commentary, no less! :) We verifiabullies do get around to our promises. How's the editing going? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess I got my satisfied customers mixed up! You're right, the article needed to represent the Joker -- now the next worry is a picture of Two-Face. We'll have to go around that block again. :) Congratulations on improving The Hire -- it looks like you've got some masterful content about the topic. If you're interested, I can research the topic for you, especially for print sources. When I started editing, I relied entirely on online sources, but I've learned to research print sources, which have a bit more information about a topic. Work on The Dark Knight (film) goes well, though an editor had some concerns with the encyclopedic tone. It's got me thinking how to reword that because I think the problem with gradually increasing the article with new information is that we don't balance it from a historical perspective. It's too chronological, you know? "In August, this happened, and in October, this happened..." I'll have to come up with a way to address that tone. Otherwise, I'm trying to branch out from the superhero/sci-fi films. I updated Body of Lies (film) as much as possible today, and I have a zillion Google Alerts to set up for headlines of future films that look to be critically acclaimed or blockbusters. An editor's work is definitely never done, not on Wikipedia! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you're off to a good start with Luther Stickell. I'd suggest providing some real-world context to substantiate the character -- for example, the conception behind him and how he's been received in the films. Wikipedia tends to frown on fiction that's written without utilizing secondary sources. You should check out items like Jack Sparrow and Jason Voorhees to see what I mean -- I doubt that Luther Stickell would warrant content as much as these two, but if you provided similar coverage, the article would be even better. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Awesome, because Alientraveller wrote up on Jack Sparrow, and Bignole wrote up on Jason Voorhees -- other folks from The Dark Knight (film). :) I haven't had much experienced in fictional character writing, but you should contact Bignole for advice. He's presently working on fictional character articles of horror film icons. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

If you're going to include summary detail that may not be seen as important as the general development of the character, you may want to ensure that it's backed with real-world context. According to WP:NOT#PLOT, "Summary descriptions of plot, characters and settings are appropriate only in the context of real-world information, not when they are the sole content of an article or told entirely from an in-universe perspective." An idea of how to provide context is to listen to DVD commentaries (if they exist); I wouldn't be surprised if they talked about the technology that Luther uses in the films. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:VinginSurma.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:VinginSurma.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 03:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mission screen004.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mission screen004.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Mr. & Mrs. Smith

OK I'm sorry if you got annoyed of my removal of the differences. I don't want to go over the whole "original research" crap, but that is part of the reason that I removed it. If you think it should be on the page, then just keep it. (Wikirocks (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC))

OK, well I take credit for deleting it, but I don't remember changing it into "trivia". Well it was a while ago so maybe I forgot. (Wikirocks (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC))

thanks

thanks for your comments. i haven't really done much on the BB article in a while, besides occasionally reverting vandals. but i'll take this as an entre to 'bury the hatchet', which i'm certainly fine with doing. after whats-his-name the designer did the whole online vote and alleged branding of the ball, it certainly became more notable and reasonable for inclusion in the article. in the grander scheme of things, the disagreement amounts to one small hill of beans. cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 18:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Paranormal Activity

Hello, Tabascoman77. You have new messages at Erik's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback: Spoilers

Hello, Tabascoman77. You have new messages at Talk:Paranormal Activity (film).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Elen of the Roads clarified the issue for me. Feel free to delete my clutter off your talk page! — SpikeToronto (talk) 22:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Tabascoman77. You have new messages at Talk:Paranormal Activity (film).
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to WrestleMania XXX may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• usos-vs-rybaxel-tag-team-title-match-announced|publisher=Cageside Seats|accessdate=24 March 2014}}</ref>
• |}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Your comments at WP:ANI are among the stranger comments that I have seen in response to block suggestions. You say that the community has no power to block you, and that you will appeal any block and will still publish the story. My advice, which you apparently don't want, is to try to be respectful and to show a willingness to edit collaboratively. However, if you are no longer interested in Wikipedia, why are you making so much noise defying the community's ability to block you? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Either say something that isn't deliberately confrontational, or say nothing at all. Just one editor's advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't edit there anymore, outside of small tweaks if I notice something is misspelled or incorrect in phrasing. The article in question will be about Zoe Quinn and GamerGate as well as the unwillingness of the media to portray any of it accurately. This will include the lumping of MRA's, misogynists and 4Chan trolls into the same group of people who have criticized game journalism for years, regardless of gender or issue.

I don't see a reason to want to collaborate with any of the four people I've mentioned, simply because there's no point in doing so. For the past month, I've watched them browbeat other editors into submission, including TitaniumDragon, which ultimately lead to him getting Doxxed which, as you know, flies contrary to Wikipedia's rules. Also, just stating "It's against BLP" doesn't make it so. I watched one of them use that line. He wouldn't allow a source from Al Jazeera of all places. Why? "It doesn't have a byline." Yeah...and...? Another complaint? "Nobody cares who Quinn slept with". Well, that doesn't matter much. Because it IS relevant. You can't create a controversy and report one side, claiming that you're simply reporting things in some neutral fashion -- only reporting the harassment. The article NEEDS to be neutral. But everything has fallen on deaf ears. That's perfectly fine. Article is being written, regardless, and the editors here can huff and puff all they want. It's not a threat. No personal info is being released. I am simply reporting what I think is the correct POV. If they can do that here, I can do that on my own news site. Have fun. TabascoMan77 (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked you for 24 hours for violations of WP:BLP. On ANI, you were specifically warned against using Wikipedia as a forum to level unsubstantiated allegations against living individuals, and you went ahead and repeated those same allegations against Quinn on Titanium Dragon's talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 22:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Posting facts got me banned? I said that Eron accused Quinn (which both Guardian and WaPo covered) and that Eron had posted evidence on his page of such a thing. Those are facts. But, you're not interested in those. BTW, thank you for cause for an ANI Harassment charge, since you're now stalking me across ANI, Titanium Dragon and my own talk page. You need to calm down, Gamaliel. You're out of control. TabascoMan77 (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my reign of terror preventing people from posting unsubstantiated allegations of wrongdoing continues unchecked. Gamaliel (talk) 22:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

It is really inappropriate to block someone who says they are going to write an article for a news outlet criticizing you, especially since there are already legitimate concerns about you being too involved in this topic area to be taking any action.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

But it's okay to use Wikipedia as a forum to make accusations against living individuals and to try to manipulate other editors by threatening them with offsite harassment through what is undoubtedly first rate journalism? Even if you put aside your long-standing animus towards me, I find it impossible to take you seriously when you refuse to address the underlying reasons that make these actions necessary. Gamaliel (talk) 00:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

But it's okay to use Wikipedia as a forum to make accusations against living individuals...

You know damn well that isn't true. I said that Eron Gjoni accused Quinn and named the source that came from (WaPo & Guardian) and that Eron Gjoni had evidence that Quinn did what he said she did. Both statements are true and factually backed by Reliable Sources. You are abusing WP:BLP and you know it.

and to try to manipulate other editors by threatening them with offsite harassment through what is undoubtedly first rate journalism?

I never bribed nor manipulated anyone using the article I am sourcing and writing. Not once. You are deliberately lying to justify this ridiculous block and it also further proves that your block was Punitive in nature. TabascoMan77 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've examined the now redacted edit you were blocked for and I fully agree with Gamaliel on this block. You clearly violated BLP by making direct accusations in violation of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. If you persist in making false accusations against others here on your talk page, as you have by calling Gamaliel a liar, I'll increase your block and remove your ability to edit your own talk page. I suggest you retract your accusations above. Dreadstar ☥ 01:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't make the accusations. I stated that Gjoni made them as per articles I had already posted. Are we all supposed to pretend that Gjoni didn't do this now? TabascoMan77 (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, your edit disagrees with you. Dreadstar ☥ 01:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

This is bias. You were involved in this before you declined my request. Do I have to find another admin to look at this? One who isn't involved? Because this is clearly Harassment and Bullying now. Gamaliel did lie. He completely misrepresented what I've done, as I explained it numerous times. And it's clear that you are fraternizing with him as shown by the clear bias. [User:Tabascoman77|TabascoMan77]] (talk) 01:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I think someone other than you should be deciding what actions are necessary on this subject per WP:INVOLVED. That goes for Dreadstar as well, who should not be declining unblocks related to this topic due to his own WP:INVOLVED issues.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you stop interfering, you're merely inflaming the situation. And no, I'm not WP:INVOLVED. Dreadstar ☥ 03:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Dreadstar, you were WP:INVOLVED in the comments here and in the parties surrounding Anita Sarkeesian, GamerGate and Zoe Quinn.([1], [2]) I know this because you already stated it on your own talk page months ago. [3] Not only that, you continue to say I've made "false accusations" without stating what accusations I've made or where I've made them, which is a violation of WP:ASPERSIONS. Also, your immediate dismissal of my Unblock is inflammatory, without explanation and you're continuing to badger me and threaten more blocks in retaliation for my protests which violate WP:HARASS and WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE, plus using vaguely threatening language toward The Devil's Advocate. Furthermore, it's clear to me (and to a few others) that you've overstepped your boundaries more than once and bullied and harassed in the past, as well as made personal attacks.[4], [5], [6], [7] Because of you and others, I have your ridiculous bullshit block. Do I need to list anything else or are you still going to pretend you aren't WP:INVOLVED? As an aside, I really appreciate you coming to my defense in this matter, The Devil's Advocate. Boys and girls, here's what ol' Uncle Tabasco learned from today's block: It's painfully obvious that Wikipedia is not the way it used to be. WP:BLP is being completely misconstrued and misused and used blindly to shut people up. That's a violation of WP:BULLY. The harassment and bullying rules exist in name only, applicable when it benefits the views and opinions of the admins and the editors they're friends with...but it doesn't matter. I've learned nothing from this block except that admins are bullies who don't listen to anyone but themselves. Oh, wait, that's another Wiki Violation: "IDON'THEAR". Once again, thanks, Devil. I'm over this bullshit. TabascoMan77 (talk) 04:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, you kind of are involved. Whether Gamaliel believes his action was justified or not, it was not appropriate for him to block Tabasco. No one could possibly argue that this situation is being handled tactfully.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

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.

Dreadstar ☥ 22:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Referring to Zoe Quinn, Gamergate controversy, Anita Sarkeesian and related articles and edits, but note this this alert applies to all edits related to the area identified above. Dreadstar ☥ 22:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for not being here to build an 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.  PhilKnight (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Note about this block

This year, your involvement in this project has clearly been an overall negative. You have argued incessantly, and introduced problems in regard to the Biography of Living Person policy, but you have done almost nothing useful. PhilKnight (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Note to other admins

Feel free to unblock without contacting me. PhilKnight (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

Tabascoman77 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Not quite sure why I'm being blocked here. I already served a 24-hour block for WP:BLP and the last discussion I attended was in WP:GOODFAITH, which I explained. The last "indef block" request was shut down as WP:NOBODYCARES. I can't "contribute to building an encyclopedia" if every single thing I do is viewed as an "attack". Would somebody kindly explain a second block to me, please? TabascoMan77 (talk) 15:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I have just reviewed your editing since the beginning of this year. I have seen numerous personal attacks, attempts to promote a point of view, refusal to accept consensus, refusal to accept Wikipedia policy, absurd accusations of conspiracies against other editors, treating Wikipedia as a WP:BATTLEGROUND rather than a collaborative project, attempts to intimidate other editors by making semi-veiled threats, and so on and so on... It seems perfectly possible that some parts of the problem may be due to a sincere inability to understand the nature of what you are doing, rather than a deliberate wish to be obstructive, but it makes no difference. Over a long period your editing has done far more harm than benefit to the project, and everything you say makes it clear that you intend to continue in the same way. Unblocking you would not be to the benefit of the project. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

---

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.

Really, Phil? So, you just happened to wander by and block me for no reason whatsoever? Is that really what you're going to do? I was blocked for 24 hours for another WP:BLP infraction (that wasn't an infraction at all -- I simply repeated what the media had reported about Eron Gjoni and used links that Wikipedia had already USED[8][9]. I appealed, it was declined, then lifted. So, I decide to come back and "contribute" peacefully. I post this to the Controversy Talk Page, thinking either side would be able to mine it for valid source links once in a while as a gesture of WP:GOODFAITH and it was immediately dismissed as WP:BLP and redacted. THEN, after I get condescended to by Tarc (who gets away with murder on the GamerGate Talk Pages with violations of WP:CIVILITY daily) and I KINDLY ask him/her for a bit of Civility, he/she deletes my comment from their talk page, dismiss me as an "angry gamer", then compare me to the Unabomber as a "reason"...and I'M the one getting an Indef Block here? What happened to this place? Wikipedia used to be a nice place to come to. That's why I edited the articles on my main page. But, the moment I wade into the GamerGate controversy, presenting the idea of neutrality, which runs opposite of the the POV Tarc and the others don't agree with, I, along with several others such as The Devil's Advocate, diego and Titanium Dragon, are dismissed as "SPA/Angry Gamer Trolls" and we're treated like absolute dirt and targeted with bans, blocks, threats of bans and blocks and condescending behavior. Do your realize how hostile an environment this has become? It presents the notion that no editor can do much of anything because a mob mentality exists and always wins. For years, I defended Wikipedia to other people, citing neutrality and source-mining. The tactics by editors and admins at Wikipedia have proved the points of the people who criticize this place. This disgusts me to no end. If you want to Indef Ban me because of Mob Mentality Rules, be my guest. I have lost all faith in Wikipedia's editing policy enforcement tactics. TabascoMan77 (talk) 18:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You were blocked for 24h for posting an external weblink that so egregiously violated WP:BLP policy that simply reverting wasn't enough, it had to be oversighted, i.e. purged from the page history completely. After that block expired, you did it again with another atrocious link (I saw it before it was wiped) to the Gamergate controversy talkpage, one that the Oversight Committee had to, yet again, purge from the page history. If this is typical of the actions you are going to undertake on this project. then I can full well see why your editing rights have been revoked. An indefinite block is not a permanent block; if you can convince an admin that you're aware that your actions were wrong, and that the behavior will cease going forward, perhaps one will agree to an unblock. IMO it kinda depends on if your word can be trusted. Tarc (talk) 18:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

What "external weblink" was this (the first time)? And the second one I posted was something I thought the community could use (which I fully explained) because I figured it could be mined for valid sources by ALL of you, not just one side. TabascoMan77 (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah. Well, going by Special:Contributions/Tabascoman77, you said something objectionable at 15:20 30 Sept 2014; I assumed it was a link somewhere, so if not, then it was the words themselves that were offensive? I dunno, only you know what you said. As for the link you posted to Talk:Gamergate controversy, it was a laundry list of links to blogs and chan archives, much of it containing pretty nasty and vile stuff said about Quinn, Grayson, et al. It was neither useful nor appropriate. Tarc (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah! That's where I asked Titanium Dragon about further sources about Gjoni's accusations since The Guardian[10]and The Washington Post[11] weren't enough. Tell me: are either of those two sources, "objectionable"? Or do you think those links actually warranted a WP:BLP block? Because that's exactly what I posted to Dragon's page. I only ask because they've already been used here. TabascoMan77 (talk) 18:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You'd have to ask the blocking admin as to what his/her rationale was. Nothing else for me to say here, really, was just pointing out why this one came about. Tarc (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute, that link was suppressed? Absolutely ridiculous. I saw the link in question and read the blog post. Did you read it Tarc? This was not even remotely the kind of thing that is eligible for suppression and I am seriously skeptical about even revision deletion being appropriate.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

TDA, the part where I said "I saw it before it was wiped" wasn't really ambiguous, was it? The site in question had links to archived 4chan threads. Need I say more? Tarc (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

And I wasn't asking for that portion to be used in any way, shape, or form. I said to mine the page for any useful or verifiable/reliable source links. But rather than pay attention to that, you just went and said "go block". Need I say more? TabascoMan77 (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it matters anymore, Devil. WP:BLP is the Official Baseball Bat of Wikipedia now. It's used to justify even the most bullshit blocks. And I categorically refuse to be drawn into some bullshit "apology" where I get on my knees and beg and plead and tell them "I won't do it again". This is absolute fucking garbage. I can understand WP:BLP in regards to actually putting it on a page. It's something else entirely to say, "There might be some useful information in here if we sift through the crap" and present the link. I didn't post the fucking link to accuse anyone of anything. I've made that considerably clear. This block needs to be removed. I'm tired of this shit. I'm sick of blocks being put on me for no reason other than spite. I'm sick of ad hominem, broad-brush attacks where I'm compared to people I don't resemble in any way. ANI Indef Block request on me because we don't like what he said about us? Check! But allowing ad hominem attacks from Ryulong, Tarc, and several others in response to trying to calmly suggest changes so that the article is neutral? THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE. It's one thing to make me aware of how and when WP:BLP is used and to sufficiently warn me of the details before hitting the "block" button. It's another to say "BLP", then use it as a bludgeon with no other warning. Once again, Devil, I thank you for your support. They're probably going to let my unblock appeal rot in hell at this point. What a shame. I've actually done good at Wikipedia and this whole experience has left a sour taste in my mouth. TabascoMan77 (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a rather mighty struggle at the moment to assume good faith regarding this matter, but...ok, let's lay this out. You posted a link to a blog-like website that discussed Gamergate, yes? And this site had on it a great variety of links to it...to news articles, to blogs, to message boards, and to 4chan archives? Your contention is that you posted it with the intention that editors here could look through it and just use the "good" links while ignoring the "bad" links. Do you not see that as problematic, that you're linking to bad material even though you say "don't look at that" ? If a cop stops and frisks me, can I say "sure go ahead; the stuff I have in my left pocket is ok, but whatever you find in my right pocket, don't hold me accountable for that". ? Tarc (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Bad analogy. Here's a better one: I bring you a bunch of apples that fell from my tree in the backyard. I say, "Hey, I'm giving these apples to you guys. Some of them are probably bruised or otherwise inedible for some reason but there might be some in here you can eat or use in a pie. You just have to go through this bucket and pick which ones you want." But, hey, I'm a shifty asshole whose intentions are questionable. The ultimate point is: I don't care about who is right or who is wrong. If I wanted to do harm to the article, I would have vandalized it or posted something in the article with the link that was pulled. But I didn't do that I refuse to do that. TabascoMan77 (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's a counter-analogy. You have a bowl of candy for trick-or-treaters; some of the candy is perfectly fine, while some have razor blades in them. If a kid picks a razor blade, it isn't your fault, right? This is like a singular variation of the Dunning–Kruger effect; your pro-Gamergate bias is so extreme that you're completely incompetent when it comes to assessing the harm you do to living people posting crap like that. Un-watching this page after this. Good luck with that unblock. Tarc (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Another stunningly bad analogy. And a loaded question at the end to boot! Thanks for that. First, the articles in question are not harmful to you in any way. I'm asking you to inspect the items in question, not sit there, e-mailing them to Zoe Quinn and her respective allies in order to cause them all mental stress and harm. It is apparent that your logical reasoning skills are severely lacking. I don't have a "pro-Gamergate" bias or else I would be fighting harder to include sources that went against Quinn AND policy. The only bias and anger here is coming from you. You come in here and say things like, "Get the pom poms, TDA" and screaming, "BIAS!" at the top of your lungs, dismissing me as an "angry gamer" and vaguely saying that I'm incompetent -- the only one suffering from some perceived disorder is yourself. You can read all about it here -- but you won't. You've already turned tail and run away. Do me a favor: calm down, take a breath and drop the ego -- especially on the Gamergate page. You've already been warned, by admins, for your incivility to others in the past. In short, stop acting like an asshole. TabascoMan77 (talk) 23:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not ask if you saw it. I asked if you read it. The links to archived 4chan threads were because the whole post was responding to claims about the nature of 4chan's involvement in GamerGate and so proving what was being said at 4chan made it apt. Nothing in the 4chan threads would seem to warrant suppression, however, even if those were the links being posted as opposed to the blog post.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

If you don't see the harm in what was contained in those 4chan archives, then you are hopelessly obtuse. Dust off your pom-poms TDA, this guy will need all the cheerleading he can get to get unblocked. Tarc (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The 4chan archives included some of the typical name-calling one expects of 4chan, but beyond that I am not seeing anything that justifies suppression. If the 4chan archives were being directly linked by Tabasco you might have a point about revision deletion, but it is the blog post that links to them in order to rebut allegations regarding the nature of 4chan's involvement in GamerGate. Arguing about a link going to a blog post that has some links that have some derogatory comments is stretching the policy well beyond its intentions. Nothing contained in the blog post itself warrants revision deletion, let alone suppression. Many innocuous links are included.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, the WP:BLP violation allegations are anorexic-thin. This was a witch hunt based on the similarly-bullshit ANI raised against me and the bullshit 24-hour block right after that. I did like Tarc portraying me as somebody handing children candy-coated razor blades, thought. The hyperbole is off the charts, as is the bullshit baiting. TabascoMan77 (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You're blocked for not being here to build an encyclopedia, and not specifically for the BLP violations. PhilKnight (talk) 07:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That's because you can't "build an encyclopedia" when you're being harassed and bullied and labeled as an "SPA"/"MRA"/"video game virgin"/etc. and nobody will allow you to have a voice because they're the ones doing all the talking. This block is garbage. I get blocked while Ryulong and Tarc are allowed to constantly violate the rules, cast aspersions on editors and harass others. If you wanna keep this block going, be my guest. This is Wikipedia at its worst and I'm glad that the ArbCom is finally seeing all this for what it is: a witch-hunt. TabascoMan77 (talk) 00:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

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—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Since I still can't edit, there's nothing I can do or say on that page. I quit this place, checking in every so often in case something has changed or new messages have been left. I was going to write my article about GamerGate to bring attention to it but it seems you cannot question the merits of anyone without being doxxed, threatened, or humiliated by either the GamerGate crowd OR those sympathetic to Zoe Quinn. Both of these parties see this as a black-and-white issue and I don't. I'm disgusted with Wikipedia and its users for continuing to abuse Wikipedia's rules and editors. The entire Talk pages at GamerGate and Zoe Quinn really sadden me because one side is clearly trying to edit while the other side continues to put labels on everyone such as MRA's or "Mansplainers" or "video game virgins" -- all terms that are disgusting, abusive, bullying, and go against the original tenets of feminism (and their own short-sighted morals) which was about equality and not about superiority of the female gender. I know because I AM a feminist. So...like I said, I'm kinda past the point of caring, The Devil's Advocate. I DO thank you for your support. I DO suggest that ArbCom looks into this and I DO hope the articles, in question, get torn down and re-written from scratch with BOTH sides fairly represented. Both articles look like one-sided puff pieces. TabascoMan77 (talk) 21:55, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

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)

I have no idea how I'm going to participate. I can't edit anything. I also don't appreciate not being able to rebut claims of BLP violations and harassment. I'm the victim of a continued witch-hunt and over-eager blocking. Oh well. Wikipedia used to be such a nice place.TabascoMan77 (talk) 09:49, 1 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)

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)

As you are currently blocked you may submit evidence by email to the Committee for it to be posted publicly on the evidence page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

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)