What Wikipedia is not - even though everyone can edit it, Wikipedia is still an encyclopedia.
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!
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)
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:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
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.
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]
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]
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)
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""
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.
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]
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]
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.
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.
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]
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]
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—
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.
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]
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:
(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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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).
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
understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
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]
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]
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)--Caililtalk11:57, 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]
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.
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).
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. LizRead!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"'
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]
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).
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:UTRSDennis 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.
SagitariusSimbol zodiakPemanahJangka waktu (Astrologi tropis)21 November – 21 Desember (2024, UTC)Jangka waktu (Astrologi sideris)18 Desember – 18 Januari (2024, UTC)Rasi bintangSagitariusElemenApiKualitasBerubahDomisilJupiterKerugianMerkuriusPeninggianMasih diperdebatkanJatuhMasih diperdebatkan Sagitarius atau Danuh (♐) adalah zodiak kesembilan dalam urutan di tabel zodiak. Di langit, zodiak ini membentang di antara 240 derajat dan 269 derajat dari sistem koordinat ekliptika. Dalam zod...
Burmese television series Better TomorrowBurmeseပို၍လှသောမနက်ဖြန် GenreDramaDirected byNyein MinStarring Yan Aung Nay Myo Aung Aung Min Khant Aung Yay Chan Nat Khat Chue Lay May Thinzar Oo Ju Jue Kay Theme music composerMyint Moe AungCountry of originMyanmarOriginal languageBurmeseNo. of episodes25ProductionExecutive producerKhin LayProducers Naing Than Soe Thura Production locationMyanmarEditors Aye Su Su Lwin Hnin Nway Oo Hlaing Honey Lin Running time30 min...
Pasang putih Quercus alba A large white oak in New JerseyStatus konservasiRisiko rendahIUCN194051 TaksonomiDivisiTracheophytaSubdivisiSpermatophytesKladAngiospermaeKladmesangiospermsKladeudicotsKladcore eudicotsKladSuperrosidaeKladrosidsKladfabidsOrdoFagalesFamiliFagaceaeGenusQuercusSpesiesQuercus alba Linnaeus, 1753 Tata namaSinonim takson Daftar Quercus candida Steud. Quercus nigrescens Raf. Quercus ramosa Dippel Quercus repanda Michx. Quercus retusa Raf. [1]DistribusiNatural range ...
Ini adalah nama Nias, madonya adalah Waruwu. Amizaro Waruwu Bupati Nias Utara ke-3PetahanaMulai menjabat 26 April 2021PresidenJoko WidodoGubernurEdy RahmayadiWakilYusman ZegaPendahuluMarselinus Ingati Nazara Yafeti Nazara (Plh.)PenggantiPetahana Informasi pribadiLahir23 Maret 1976 (umur 48)Fadoro, Sumatera Utara, IndonesiaPartai politikPANSuami/istriArismanwati ZendratoAnak5Alma materIKIP GunungsitoliPekerjaanPolitikusSunting kotak info • L • B Amizaro Waruwu, S.Pd....
Measure of wave reflectivity This article is about reflections of waves. For the use of the term with capillary membrames, see Starling equation § Reflection coefficient. For intensity ratios, see Reflectance. In physics and electrical engineering the reflection coefficient is a parameter that describes how much of a wave is reflected by an impedance discontinuity in the transmission medium. It is equal to the ratio of the amplitude of the reflected wave to the incident wave, with each ...
Malayalam poet (1705–1770) Kunjan NambiarKunjan NambiarBorn(1705-05-05)5 May 1705Palakkad, Kerala, IndiaDied1770Ambalappuzha, Kerala, IndiaNationalityIndianOccupationPoet Kunchan Nambiar was a prominent Malayalam poet of the 18th century (1705-1770). Apart from being a prolific poet, Nambiar is also famous as the originator of the dance art form of Thullal, most of his works were written for use in Thullal performances. Social criticism wrapped in humour is the hallmark of his works. Nambia...
Disambiguazione – Stig rimanda qui. Se stai cercando altri significati, vedi Stig (disambigua). Questa voce o sezione sull'argomento professionisti televisivi non cita le fonti necessarie o quelle presenti sono insufficienti. Commento: Mancano le fonti nella seconda parte, e lo stile è rivedibile Puoi migliorare questa voce aggiungendo citazioni da fonti attendibili secondo le linee guida sull'uso delle fonti. Segui i suggerimenti del progetto di riferimento. The Stig a Londr...
Pour les articles homonymes, voir Forges. Forges La mairie. Blason Administration Pays France Région Île-de-France Département Seine-et-Marne(Melun) Arrondissement Provins Intercommunalité Communauté de communes Pays de Montereau Maire Mandat Romain Senoble 2020-2026 Code postal 77130 Code commune 77194 Démographie Gentilé Forgeois Populationmunicipale 421 hab. (2021 ) Densité 32 hab./km2 Géographie Coordonnées 48° 25′ 06″ nord, 2° 57′ 40�...
✓ الكود المصدري لملف SVG هذا صالح. ملخص مَعْلُومَاتُ وَسَائِطَ غَيْر حُرّة وَتَعْلِيلُ الاسْتِعْمَالِ – شعار غير حر true لِمَقَالَة كأس الأمم الإفريقية 2023 الوَصْفُ هذا الشعار مملوك من قبل الاتحاد الإفريقي لكرة القدم لكأس الأمم الإفريقية 2023. المَصْدَرُ مصدر الصورة المَقَال...
Cet article est une ébauche concernant une chanson en langue française et le Concours Eurovision de la chanson. Vous pouvez partager vos connaissances en l’améliorant (comment ?) selon les recommandations des projets correspondants. L'amour ça fait chanter la vie Chanson de Jean Vallée auConcours Eurovision de la chanson 1978 Sortie 1978 Durée 2:57 Langue Français Genre Pop, chanson française Auteur-compositeur Jean Vallée Classement 2e (125 points) Chansons représentan...
У этого термина существуют и другие значения, см. Площадь Тараса Шевченко. Площадь Тараса Шевченкоукр. Площа Тараса Шевченка 50°31′15″ с. ш. 30°26′58″ в. д.HGЯO Общая информация Страна Украина Названа в честьТарас Григорьевич Шевченко Медиафайлы на Викис...
Belief that a Golden Age or Paradise will occur prior to the final judgment Not to be confused with Millenarianism. For the Christian doctrine regarding Jesus Christ's reign in heaven, see Session of Christ and Intercession of Christ. For an overview of the earthly reign of the messiah in Abrahamic religions, see Messianic age. This article is about the Christian concept. For the Millennial generation, see Millennials. Part of a series onEschatology Buddhist Maitreya Three Ages Christian —&...
Italian politician Vito Scalia Vito Scalia (May 13, 1925 – October 8, 2009) was an Italian Christian Democrat politician. He served in the Chamber of Deputies of Italy in Legislature II (1953–1958), Legislature III (1958–1963), Legislature IV (1963–1968), Legislature V (1968–1972), Legislature VII (1976–1979) and Legislature VIII (1979–1983). He served in the cabinet of Prime Minister Cossiga (1979–1980).[1] References ^ È morto a Roma l'ex ministro Vito Scalia, fu se...
Конструкція джойстика: 1 Руків'я 2 Підстава 3 Кнопка «Вогонь» (гашетка) 4 Додаткові кнопки 5 Перемикач автоматичного вогню 6 Газ/тяга 7 Мініджойстик 8 Присоски (кріплення) Напрямки можливих рухів джойстика Не плутати з Геймпад. Ця стаття не містить посилань на джерела. Ви може...
For the adjacent town in Germany, see Rheinfelden, Germany. Municipality in Aargau, SwitzerlandRheinfeldenMunicipality Coat of armsLocation of Rheinfelden RheinfeldenShow map of SwitzerlandRheinfeldenShow map of Canton of AargauCoordinates: 47°33′N 7°48′E / 47.550°N 7.800°E / 47.550; 7.800CountrySwitzerlandCantonAargauDistrictRheinfeldenGovernment • ExecutiveGemeinderat with 5 members • MayorStadtammmann (list)Franco Mazzi FDP/...
Nosiviwe Mapisa-Nqakula Menteri Pertahanan dan Veteran MiliterPetahanaMulai menjabat 12 Juni 2012PresidenJacob ZumaCyril RamaphosaWakilKebby MaphatsoePendahuluLindiwe SisuluPenggantiPetahanaMenteri Layanan KoreksionalMasa jabatan11 Mei 2009 – 12 Juni 2012PresidenJacob ZumaPendahuluNgconde BalfourPenggantiS'bu NdebeleMenteri Urusan Dalam NegeriMasa jabatan29 April 2004 – 10 Mei 2009PresidenThabo MbekiKgalema MotlanthePendahuluMangosuthu ButheleziPenggantiNkosazana Dla...
Tiny Kox Fonctions Président de l'Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l'Europe 24 janvier 2022 – 24 janvier 2024(2 ans) Élection 24 janvier 2022 Prédécesseur Rik Daems Successeur Theódoros Roussópoulos Représentant à l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l'Europe En fonction depuis le 22 janvier 2007(17 ans, 6 mois et 29 jours) Circonscription Pays-Bas Groupe politique GUE Suppléant à l’Assemblée parlementaire du Conseil de l'Europe 25 septembre 200...
Thai footballer (born 1999) Ekanit Panya Ekanit Panya in 2024Personal informationFull name Ekanit Panya[1]Date of birth (1999-10-21) 21 October 1999 (age 24)[1]Place of birth Chiang Rai, ThailandHeight 1.68 m (5 ft 6 in)[1]Position(s) Attacking midfielderTeam informationCurrent team Urawa Red DiamondsNumber 27Youth career2010–2015 Chiangrai UnitedSenior career*Years Team Apps (Gls)2015–2022 Chiangrai United 54 (7)2017 → Chiangrai City (loan) 2...
