User talk:Tarc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
2006-08, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2013-14

Archive for the Now

... Tarc (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I trust

my opinions on such decisions are clear. Collect (talk) 11:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Er, what? Tarc (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Relating to ArbCom topic bans from a single user talk page as being quite weird in esse. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
A bit like getting into a fender bender, then being barred from driving down that particular street. What can ya do, it's the law of the wiki-land, for now. Tarc (talk) 14:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)


Err, wanna semiprotect this for a bit? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yea, that'd probably be a good idea for a bit, thanks. Between the pro-Gamergate aggressors and the rapper bio I brought to AfD last night, I think the Tarc Fan Club mailbox is overflowing. Tarc (talk) 13:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Alright - gave it 3 months. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Rockin', thanks. Tarc (talk) 20:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Nip Gamergate in the bud. Thank you. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yea, unfortunately I've got a fan club that is no doubt watching for any toes out of line wrt this affair. Participating in an admin noticeboard thread where I'm not primarily involved may be a grey area. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

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

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

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

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—



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

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. RGloucester 21:54, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Comments about others

Please stop commenting about others on the article talk page as you did here, it violates the expected standards of behavior and exposes you to possible sanctions pwer Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate. If you want to talk about others, take it to a noticeboard and follow WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Dreadstar 02:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case request(Gamergate) declined

An arbitration case request(Gamergate), involving you, has been archived, because the request was declined.

The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Not to bug you...

But could you point me to where that consensus was reached? I can't find it on the talk page. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeletos (talkcontribs) 04:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Quinn's jilted ex-boyfriend made demonstrably false accusations of impropriety, so that is who we characterize his claims. Tarc (talk) 04:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
I know that some (read: most if not all) of his claims were mere speculation, but how does that warrant labeling all allegations against Zoe as false? The allegations are coming from her detractors, not him. Skeletos (talk) 04:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
He made false allegations of impropriety in a blog rant, others took that ball and ran with it. Tarc (talk) 13:33, 7 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—

Thanks,--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


You were reverting the wrong thing here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Torga took care of it but he's probably going to restore what he wanted to revert soon enough.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:31, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yea, it's getting confusing at the moment, our creaky mediawiki software isn't meant to handle high-speed vandalism like his. We'll clear it up one way or another. Tarc (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)


I know I'm just a WP:SPA, but I noticed the User_talk:Retartist/8chanstuff page may have some BLP issues (specifically the claim that has the word 'illegally' in it.) Not sure if this is something I should take to WP:BLPN or if I'm just tilting at windmills here. — Strongjam (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Decided to go ahead with WP:BLPN report, no point in wasting time. — Strongjam (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:ARCA request (banning policy)

I have initiated a request regarding your administrative noticeboard ban at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Banning Policy. KonveyorBelt 19:30, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear talk page stalkers: short break

What is truly ironic about all the Gamergate stuff is that a few years ago, I probably would have been a natural ally of theirs. I, however, evolved, into a stance that harassing women on the internet is very much not OK, but I still love gaming itself. As such, I will be delving into new adventures for a few days, and time here will be spotty. Tarc (talk) 13:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

  • There are some misguided 'gamerz' that fall into the #GG category, but the vast majority of people doing the harassing of women and using Gamergate as a forum are people from the 'Men's Rights' advocacy groups. Add in some straggling Freepers that have glommed on, throw in 8chan/4chan/b/ trolls, and that's the 'movement' in a nutshell. Real gamers don't give a shit about the crap being pushed by those people. They know that sales drive the video game industry, and that developers are going to cater to what sells, not some PC version of a game. Not that I disagree with some of the points made by the women gamers, they are correct in many of their complaints. But for Christ's sake, look at the adult film industry, and other portrayals of women in graphic imagery. Puhhh, as if game developers and the industry are all of a sudden going to stop giving people what they want. They would just lose $$money$$ to indie outlets. In other words, the whole thing is stupid beyond belief and just a reason for some sexually frustrated males to attack women for daring to not want to fuck them. Dave Dial (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Yea, I logged into Twitter a moment ago and saw "99+" in the notifications; the neckbeards are having a field day. It's a shame for them that I'm not actually concerned with thier point of view. The only reason I became involved in the GG article in the first place was the BLP concerns regarding Quinn. Tarc (talk) 23:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


[1]Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I think things may have been flubbed regarding how this guy was handled. Let's chalk it up as a learning experience and move on. Tarc (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
People have told him to post things on the ArbCom page and ANI now because I called his message a threat initially. Even though I have just remembered that you are forbidden from even doing anything at ANI now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:07, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
@Ryulong: ANI thing was my fault. Thought I was being friendly to him, realize it was a mistake now and I should have just pointed him to WP:EA for advice from more experienced editors. I apologize. I suggested to him that the best way forward was for you to retract the 'threatening' comment and that you two just go your separate ways. Other then that I'm not going to inject myself into this any more. Clearly I'm over my head. Again, I really do apologize, I realize both you and Tarc have been made targets and I have a lot of appreciation for you both. — Strongjam (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate Arbcom

Please note the instruction for your statement in the Gamergate request for a case:

Without exception, statements (including responses to other statements) must be shorter than 500 words.

Your statement is at 717 words, so is over the limit. I see several statements are over, and I am contacting anyone who is over 500. Please recall that this statement is not intended to be a full exposition of all evidence, which occurs at the next step, but simply a statement requesting a case. Please trim back your statement. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --DSA510 Pls No H8 21:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

What on earth are you gettin on about? I've made 7 (now 8) edits all weekend, only 2 of which were Gamergate-related. Weekends is sports time for me. GO PATS! Tarc (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--ArmyLine (talk) 06:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks like this resolved itself overnight. I like those ANIs. Anyways, for any involved types that are talk page watching here, I have no desire to wade into the carping and cat-calling of this ANI threat. Yes, I have tweeted to Quinn and others occasionally, because I think in the midst of the hundreds of tweets they get per day describing ways they will be raped and murdered, that they might like to hear some positive messages for a change. Also that they can at least count on their respective Wikipedia articles being free of GG harassment, bias, and slanted writing. If the pro-GG folks want to try to make hay out of me having empathy with an abuse victim, then, whatever. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving

Even to Gamergaters. :)

I shall probably not be back til Sunday, too much turkey and football this long weekend. Tarc (talk) 16:22, 27 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 (TCGE) 22:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Cute grey kitten.jpg

Cute and naughty when it needs to be :-)

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Back a little early, lazy Friday. Thanks. :) Tarc (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


"Literally Who," LOLLERSKATES so funny! Because Gamergate is about ethics in gaming journalism, not juvenile trolling and petty bullshit. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:15, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: You might have to explain why you did it a bit more clearly. Took me bit to realize it was just a stupid literally who joke and I wouldn't expect the arbs to be aware of it. — Strongjam (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't get it. Just though tit was some new editor who was a bit inattentive to detail. Tarc (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
It's a really, really stupid Gamergate meme, referring to the three primary targets as "Literally Who" 1/2/3 — dehumanizing the victims of their trolling and harassment. I feel like I'm losing brain cells even talking about it, it's that incredibly awful. If that person's protected edit had come into play, the article would have said "Quinn [who?]" and somewhere in the bottom of the Internet's barrel, there would be sniggers. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Isn't the term "LW" to try and get people to stop talking about them? --DSA510 Pls No Bully 23:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@DungeonSiegeAddict510: If it was it hasn't worked. As evidenced by the phrase being used so much that it's has an acronym. Also, be careful, you are topic banned and that extends to the talk pages. I don't think this is edit worth raising a stink over though. — Strongjam (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request closed

Regarding a clarification which related to you (Banning Policy case), the arbitrators who commented were in agreement that the edit in question violates the remedy. You can view the archived copy of the request here. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 10:50, 30 November 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)


See [2] Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:36, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting but not sure how it'd work in practical terms. I'll look more later, time to gear up for football. :) Tarc (talk) 16:38, 7 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 (talkcontribslogs) 06:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Discussion of interest to you

You were a discussant at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Cloutier which (somewhat strangely) closed as a delete with 5 delete and 4 keep responses. The article has since been recreated through the WP:AFC process and a speedy deletion was contested. Thus, I call your attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Cloutier (2nd nomination).--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)