User talk:Dreadstar

Welcome!

Archives and sandboxes My articles Awards received Dreadstar's Archives Dreadstar's Sandboxes In recognition of your efforts on Wikipedia and for dedication to law oriented edits, I, Cdogsimmons, award you the Society Barnstar. Defender The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar In recognition & thanks for your efforts in helping us work our way towards consensus towards making Battle of Washita River a good WP:NPOV (instead of WP:SOAP) article. Still a lotta work to do, but now we can do it, in no small part because of your help. Yksin Award! The Vandal Eliminator Award * I, Stormtracker94, award you the Vandal Eliminator Award for amazing vandal fighting and RC Patrol. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! RL Barnstar The Real Life Barnstar - For reporting a situation that could have resulted in a real life massacre I present you this barnstar. Initiative in dealing with situations like this is essential, and for all we know you may have saved lives the moment you posted that. Good work! Thank you. +Hexagon1 (t) Initiative in dealing with situations like this is essential, and for all we know you may have saved lives the moment you posted that. Good work! +Hexagon1 (t) Just be glad you're on the good side, every time I get involved in situations like that, I seem to be the one getting arrested... (kidding, please don't report me Mr. Thoughtpolice-man! :) +Hexagon1 Holy wow. Good job, Dreadstar. --Fang Aili talk

New comments below this section

Thanks! Dreadstar †

On GG

Your interactions have been fine (and I've been trying to keep my own civility there), but I have an issue with Ryulong (as seriously involved) removing a user's comment [1] under the claim of NOTFORUM, when the user is supplying a link to support something - even if it is clear that we likely cannot do anything directly with that link, the post is clearly not intended as a forum about the topic but a question about improvement. I would think that per the sanctions, unless we're talking a serious and obvious BLP violation, the involved editors should stay out of policing the talk page in this manner, letting you or other uninvolved handle that. --MASEM (t) 21:27, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

To note, this is second removal of that same bit [2] after the same commentor re-added it after its removal, so obviously that's a problem too, but again this going to back who should and/or shouldn't be policing the talk page with the sanctions in place. --MASEM (t) 21:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, that removal by Ryulong was incorrect; I'll point them to this discussion. It might indeed be best if the involved editors didn't police the talk page, but instead bring it to me or another uninvolved admin. From what I can recall, most of the policing done by the editors there seem to be fine, with the occasional 'bridge too far' event like the above. Let me know if it's worse than I'm seeing and I'll look further into putting a moratorium on policing by the involved. And thanks for letting me know my interactions are ok. Dreadstar ☥ 01:25, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

You only redact Baranof and Ryulong but delete everything I write? Once more you ignore the POV-pushing and other poor behavior from Ryulong and others in favor of going after me. Clearly, you do not even understand the fucking policies you cite. You seriously need to be desysopped. Obviously, all that power has gone to your head. Any "incivility" (read: calling out bad behavior, while criticizing edits) on my part is a result of your inaction and the inaction of various other admins who seem to have no interest in dealing with the blatantly POINTy and POV behavior of these editors, while they continue to run wild and pull this kind of shit.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, everything that you wrote here doesn't belong on the article talk page, since it's all about the behavior of other editors - if not, then please point out the parts that don't talk about other editors. The posts by the other editors you mention had comments about others mixed in with valid editorial discussion, I redacted the parts that don't belong on an article talk page. As a side note, calling other editor "pov-pushers' is uncivil, and violates Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate. I think the 'inaction' you're seeing on edits as you present above, is that they aren't actionable on their own. In the case of edits like that, a compilation of evidence that shows an ongoing and historical effort to bias the article would be the only way to lead to a sanction; but that can cut both ways. I'm sorry you're seeing this as an attack on you, that is certainly not my intent. Dreadstar ☥ 01:21, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

It is far from being all about their behavior, it is about their edits. Comments such as "Also, what do you call it when you edit a section to make it seem like the existence of female and minority GamerGate supporters is somehow questionable? There is nothing dubious about it" or "What they have tried to do with the notyourshield section is to attribute every statement about women and minorities being part of GamerGate so as to cast doubt on the veracity of the information and erase what they can't spin in such a manner seeing as the Washington Post acknowledges as fact that there are indeed women and minorities in GamerGate. Ryulong even takes this to the point of trimming the caption on the Sommers image to avoid mentioning her statement that the gamer generation is the least prejudiced generation. Nothing they have done is supported by policy or sourcing" may very will criticize their behavior, but there is no way you can honestly argue that this does not also concern the changes being made to content on the article.

You probably know this on some level, but simply do not give a shit because my comments go against your own opinion on the issue of GamerGate. There is not even a prohibition on mentioning or criticizing conduct of other editors of the talk page so the fact I criticized them for the edits they were making, even if you could somehow claim nothing I quoted here was criticizing the edits themselves, is not a basis for removing any part of my comments either. Not surprisingly they seem to be taking advantage of the continued enabling of partisan admins such as yourself to shove even more POV garbage into the article. Just so you know, I am taking this to ArbCom as soon as I am able and you will be a party to that case. Obviously, no admin is going to do anything about this despite the general sanctions, just as I said when they were suggested, so it is a necessary step. The fact that editors such as Ryulong, Baranof, and Red, are able to continue this unimpeded as those opposing their flagrant disrespect for NPOV see their comments deleted and get blocked or topic-banned is an indictment of you and all other admins frequenting that topic area.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Another questionable behavior/not content post: [3] and potentially the comment leading to it [4]. --MASEM (t) 16:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Halfhat asked why the thread was just another bad POV debate, and I pointed out the combative verbiage that he used to begin the discussion to begin with. I nether attacked nor denigrated, just a programmer's observation of garbage in, garbage out. There's a bit of a line between calling attention to disruptive posts and simple tattle-taling, Masem. I think you tip-toed over that line here. Tarc (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the question needed an answer in the first place - and why not answer it on Halfhat's talk page instead of the article talk page? And yeah, you are commenting on another editor. Pointless really, except to potentially inflame the situation. Renaming the section would have been preferable. Dreadstar ☥ 16:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Fine, fine, hatted off. I see the section rename, there. I was half-tempted to re-title it "The debate of legitimacy of ethics section should be smothered with kittens." Admit it, it would've been funny. Tarc (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

LOL! Yeah, that would have been good, until someone misread it and thought we were advocating smothering kittens or something... Thanks for hatting, since no one responded to it, you could just delete if you like. I imagine the 'garbage, utter garbage' could possibly be discussing the editorial content...not in a helpful way, but....<sigh> Dreadstar ☥ 16:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but again [5]; it's not so much if that thread itself should be closed or not, but the fact it was by someone involved. (And while I leave it to your opinion if the thread should be closed or not, it's a bit condescending to claim it a deadhorse and seems a way to stifle civil discussion when one is that involved.) --MASEM (t) 19:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

"Do you have any experience with articles? Or just talk page trolling? Have you read the manual of style? Have you seen how captions are written in other articles? Why not take a look at some featured articles?" Hahnchen (talk · contribs) on TRPoD (who has literally 16 times Hanchen's article edits.) -- TaraInDC (talk) 01:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)