User talk:AugustRemembrancer

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or sock puppetry.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions on Gamergate and gender controversy articles

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

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 Please also note that Gamergate controversy is under a 1 revert per 24 hours rule. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

OK. I think I understand. AugustRemembrancer (talk) 06:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Please identify all previous accounts and IP addresses you have edited Wikipedia with, preferably before you run afoul of WP:DUCK. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet account. I do not have any other wikipedia accounts. I do not know who I am supposed to be a sockpuppet for, or on what basis this conclusion has even been reached. There has been no explanation of any kind. Could User:The ed17 please explain their reasoning here? AugustRemembrancer (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I agree with the blocking admin's characterisation of your editing pattern, and in this context, I'm declining your request to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you the reviewing administrator? Could you extend the courtesy of explaining what the blocking admins characterization actually is? Or your own understanding of it? And why it necessitates a response of this magnitude? AugustRemembrancer (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2015 (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.

Of course. You've gamed the system by editing until you obtained the autoconfirmed flag, then immediately jumped into the controversial Gamergate topic, showing an inordinate amount of Wikipedia knowledge from your first edit. Obvious sock is obvious, and I don't have much tolerance for someone who is trying to waste our time. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not here to waste time. I'm here to improve articles. And I am not a sock puppet. I do not have "inordinate knowledge" of whatever Wikipedian internal processes you are applying here. I have signed up to this site, in good faith, to make good faith improvements to articles. I have made a point to engage in discussions so as to avoid any controversy or edit warring. These accusations that I am a sockpuppet, or trying to waste people's time are untrue.

Simply put, who is it that am I supposed to be a sockpuppet for? AugustRemembrancer (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I will let the reviewing admin judge the above statement. Personally, I think that one look at their contribution history will prove it utterly false. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Who is the reviewing admin? Is there anywhere to go to proceed with this? AugustRemembrancer (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I think a fair resolution, assuming someone wants to unblock this user and they are truly serious about trying to improve the encyclopedia, is for AugustRemembrancer to accept a self-imposed topic ban regarding Gamer Gate, gender issues, and feminism, broadly construed. Maybe tack "video games" on there for good measure. I might actually believe they are here to help and not hinder then.--Jorm (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I endorse Jorm's recommendation. The account was created a couple of weeks ago and doesn't edit at all until today. It then racks up enough for autoconfirm in a few hours, creates a fully formed "gamer identity" user page in a single edit, then commences tendentious Gamergate editing. I don't know about anyone else, but I did not fall off a turnip truck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed I am a gamer. I came here today to suggest improvements to the GamerGate article. That is all I have done. I have not edited the article. I have suggested improvements on the talk page. Some of these have been implemented by other editors. That is all I intend to do. Suggest improvements, offer opinion and consultancy. I have mediawiki experience, and knowledge of this topic.

I have not engaged in any action to warrant this kind of response from the admins, or such a broadly construed block. I realise I am a new user, I realise the topic is contentious. But I am able to offer constructive input on the article talk page. I would like to continue to do so, and let my actions in that capacity be the basis for any judgments made on me.

If the admins wish to independently impose a topic ban on me for whatever reason, let that procedure be applied in its own right. But asking me to submit to such a ban as a requirement for lifting a false allegation of sockpuppetry is unreasonable. I am not a sockpuppet, I do not have any other account on this site.

I would ask the admins to consider that, while the entire topic of Gamergate is contentious, it is now eight months old and at some point the need for heavy handed reactions ebbs. There are many editors such as myself who can offer (needed) constructive input in a collegial way, for the benefit of the article, and the site as a whole. This is not something that should be seen as tendentious, or requiring of a reflexive bans. AugustRemembrancer (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Why should the admins here take a view that is completely contrary to what the arbs themselves just a few days ago decided? " I'm absolutely not inclined to narrow the scope of any restrictions here....If the disruption is still that ongoing, that is if anything an argument for more severity in the sanctions, not less." " I don't personally see any trouble with robust administrative actions against new accounts whose only activity is to edit provocatively or disruptively in sensitive areas." etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Jorm and Cullen328 here a bit; AR can very well edit articles on memes (since he claims that Wikipedia has nothing related to the,), but at the same time what if he makes sexist edits outside the banned topics where one is proposed? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we could just deal with that if and when it happened.--Jorm (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems fair enough. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Did this editor do something specific to earn a block? Or is this block solely based on sock puppetry, and if so in which way is this not a valid alt? From my understanding of policy, editing a highly controversial area is one of the valid reasons for using an alt. WP:VALIDALT TyTyMang (talk) 05:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• The block is also based on disruptive, tendentious editing in a highly controversial topic area subject to ArbCom sanctions. But you already knew that, didn't you, TyTyMang? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we have different opinions of "disruptive" and "tendentious". All I saw from him was bringing up issues that seemed at least fairly constructive. In fact this edit resulted in a positive contribution to the article. This editor hasn't edited the Gamergate article at all. Just the talk page.

We most certainly do have different views of what is disruptive and tendentious, TyTyMang. If you think that disruption is limited to article space, then you are sorely wrong. I am an experienced generalist editor who has worked in hundreds of topic areas over the six years I have been editing, and think I can recognize disruption when I see it. But, of course, I could be wrong, and if so, I trust that other experienced editors will tell me so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Rsrikanth05: Why would you suggest that this editor would make "sexist" edits. Has this editor made similar edits that I have just over looked in his very short contribution list? If not then the comment is extremely inappropriate and you should retract and apologize. TyTyMang (talk) 05:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@TyTyMang: I would suggest branching out from the Gamergate topic before you're blocked for being a SPA/SOAP. (keeping in mind the emotional limitations of textual conversation—that's advice, not a threat) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware being an SPA was a blockable offense. But then again, I was also not aware that allegedly having an alt was blockable either.

In any case, I don't understand why you decided to ignore my question and instead make a statement that you then had to disclaim as "not a threat". TyTyMang (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Your definition of an alt is so wide that it makes me wonder why we have a sockpuppet policy. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Your own definition of a sockpuppet is so wide I also wonder what the policy is even for. For the record, the WP:DUCK pages reads like a joke policy, so it's hard to know how seriously I am supposed to be taking all of this. What I will seriously question is the ability of anyone to seriously edit the Gamergate article in anything approaching a neutral fashion. It is currently under the control of politicized zealots with no sense of perspective, and as far as I can tell, poor knowledge of both gaming and the controversy as a whole. I'd like to help with that but even the offer of advise is met with an unprovoked and unjustified accusation of sockpuppetry.

I don't believe that the editors or admins ever intended allowing the page to be anything other than it currently is, which is a proxy battleground in an American culture war. It is sad that this has to occur in a controversy about the internet in general, and video games in particular, since both are international institutions, but I doubt even the existence of a world beyond US political partisanship will exist on that page by the end. AugustRemembrancer (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You are, of course, free to ask for a second block review if you question my judgement. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

How is the reviewing admin selected in this process? AugustRemembrancer (talk) 05:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

A user with 87 edits asking me to apologise to a blocked user with 31 edits. Sure. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)