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 †

Lock on Gamergate

It's now been over a week since the lock was imposed on the talk page. Are there plans to rescind it at any point in time? I am totally locked out of the discussion, as any attempt to ask other editors to post responses from me to my pings would almost certainly get me pulled up before ANI as a suspected meatpuppet.192.249.47.186 (talk) 16:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

So since you are not a meat puppet what draws you to this topic area? How did you learn the terms meat puppet and ANI? Chillum 16:16, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You can easily check my edit history, and my past conversations with HJ Mitchell. I've not made any effort to obscure this. I have my own reasons for editing from my IP rather than my account, and they predate Gamergate.

As for what drew me to the topic area -- (1) I heard about the topic, (2) I like to read japanese-pop-culture articles, and noticed that prominent editor Ryulong was getting into some wikidrama. When I see people mentioning other articles, I click the link and investigate, because I am by nature a curious person. I think a quick skim of my contributions to that talk page should make it very clear that I wasn't being disruptive, or soapboxing, or sealioning, etc. As Dreadstar has previously clarified to me, no IPs had been recently disruptive on that page, and the lock was in response to disruption on another article.192.249.47.186 (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

So should I just assume the page protection is indefinite, then?192.249.47.186 (talk) 18:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Evil-disposed listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Evil-disposed. Since you had some involvement with the Evil-disposed redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

ygm

check email — Ched :  ?  16:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

thx

Thanks for reminding me to stay clear of conflicts. -M.Altenmann >t 17:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It's tough, I know, especially in entrenched areas. Dreadstar ☥ 18:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

CAn someone counsel this person...

I really don't care if he's blocked (would prefer not, actually) but... after being unblocked we're right back at it. See this edit. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

question

im not sure it qualifies but on my talk page i'm pretty sure someone threatned me Saturn star (talk) 01:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh my, yes, that's bad - good you reported it. I see it's been taken care of tho and the admin gave you good advice. Dreadstar ☥ 02:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Re: Your hatting

Is there a reason you left Mark's attack out? It's the flashpoint of the problem. Someone complained when I tucked it under before, so I'm being proactive this time. Thargor Orlando (talk) 21:33, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

As you disappeared and nothing had changed, I tucked it back under. No intentions of having the hatnote speak to your actions on this specific issue, feel free to reverse/amend. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Please do not move comments under a hat with my signature on it. Since the comment by MB was not directed at other editors (after specific redaction by me), and was commenting on the article and sources, it does not appear to violate talk page or civility guidelines. Asking for the section to be hatted due to the repetition of the same question asked several times in the past does not seem out of order either. Dreadstar ☥ 23:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, feel free to reverse/amend. You did. I still wish you'd keep the flashpoint hatted, as even your redaction doesn't go far enough. Why we're tolerating that disruption, I don't know. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion isn't always the same as disruption. While I think a few folks there could benefit from a break from the topic - perhaps talking through things will lead to a more stable understanding. — Ched :  ?  17:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:3O

Since this is here, I'm going to use Dreadstar's talk to address a few things regarding the Gamergate situation. Considering the volume of text on that talk page, hopefully I can be heard here. I'm going to ping two people here, because I feel they'll benefit the most from my comments: @Thargor Orlando: and @MarkBernstein:.

First and foremost: FOCUS ON CONTENT. Now, as I see it: Dreadstar is simply attempting to maintain decorum, and apply WP:AE where needed, as such - the "hat" was a good choice. (the other being handing out blocks).

Second: As I said above, it's obvious that there are different opinions on many aspects here, and discussion is needed to reach a WP:CONSENSUS on what to include and how to include it wrt the article. Discussion need not be disruptive - be respectful, and WP:AGF.

Third: MarkB. You seem to feel: "This thread should be hatted at once", "There is nothing to discuss:", and "This is not a contribution to the encyclopedia; this discussion should be closed and should not be revisited until the preponderant judgment of reliable sources has clearly changed." - I'm sorry, but you're wrong. (there simply isn't an easy way to say it, but you are) If you feel something is being used improperly as a reliable source, then you want to go here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.

Fourth: Thargor, if someone complained about you moving something to the hat, don't balk when they move it back. See: WP:BRD. Perhaps not everyone read something as an "attack".

Now: As far as the WP:RS go, if there is a dispute on one or some of them, then a WP:RFC is what you're looking for. You folks need to find a way to compromise and cooperate here. If there are two sides to a story, you present both sides. We don't report "news", we document history and facts here. If facts are disputed - you document the dispute, not one side.

Example: (and I'll just use the second sentence, since the first is just definition of the topic) -

• It garnered significant public attention in August 2014 when it was reported that several women within the video game industry, primarily game developers Zoe Quinn and Brianna Wu and feminist cultural critic Anita Sarkeesian, were subjected to a sustained campaign of misogynistic attacks.

Hopefully ya'all can find something of use in all that. — Ched :  ?  21:48, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry,@Ched:, but I'm afraid you may have misunderstood the discussion. One group is arguing here that, because the usual reliable sources are biased against GamerGate, we need to take that into account -- and, specifically, that we should not repeat the preponderant conclusion of the reliable sources because the reliable sources are wrong. (This is not my position, but I am doing my best to state it fairly here.) I am repeating WP:FLAT: Wikipedia follows the sources, period. There's an extensive talk page archive, you'll have noticed; I'm not sure that you've read it. I've read it fairly extensively, to my sorrow, and written on it fairly extensively as well; those remarks have themselves been quoted in some interesting places (http://markBernstein.org/Feb15/Press.html).

This page and its ancillary disputes, as you may know, has been the subject of RFCs, something like a dozen trips to AN/I, and a recently-concluded ArbCom case.

In point of fact, my conclusion that “there is nothing [in that topic] to discuss” is very probably correct. The supposition that the reports of harassment are false or misattributed are reported by few or no reliable sources, while the contrary assertion has been reported by dozens, indeed hundreds, of reliable sources. There is in my judgment no likelihood that the discussion will change article space, for reasons I explained there. As there's no likelihood that this could eventuate in article space changes (and, if it did, it would cast the project in a very unfortunate light); there's no reason for the talk page discussion per WP:FORUM/WP:SYNTH/WP:OR.

Thanks for your note. I'm trying really hard not to WP:BITE and I'm not sure whether I ought to be reading more into your message than superficially appears. I’m assuming that you've not been following the topic closely and so trying not to over-analyze. And I'm assuming that you're not yet familiar with “Infamous”, “Thoughtless”, “Careless”, and “Reckless”. If I’m mistaken here, and I should be looking more closely for hidden meanings, do let me know -- and if you'd like to explore this in more detail, my email is always open. Can't write more now-- dealing with some press queries. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope - no hidden meanings. Nope - haven't read the archives. Nope - Not familiar with “Infamous”, “Thoughtless”, “Careless”, and “Reckless”. I just have the general idea about the topic - no idea on details or authors or anything. So, in general I have two thoughts:

1.) Abuse of any kind is wrong ... regardless of gender.

2.) I strongly believe that on wiki some of the leading "feminist agenda" players are not what they like to portray themselves as, but rather something else. (nobody in this thread by the way).

That said, I'm not likely to get involved in the topic, other than possibly at the administrative end. It's not that I mind talking about it, and my email is open too, it's just not worth my sanity or blowing my cool over a page on the Internet. Best of luck to all. — Ched :  ?  02:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

The main problem I saw was that the article talk page is not the right place to discuss the behavior of other editors, even apparent editor trends. It's fine to say, "this has been discussed to death, and it should be hatted," but a different thing to accuse other editors of using repetition as a 'ploy', that's clearly straying into speculation about motivations and talking about other editors and not content. That's the heart of what I removed from the article talk page. Dreadstar ☥ 02:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Precious again

silent support
I sing a "Lied one Worte" (Song without words) to praise your good and helpful advice about what to ignore, - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (2 January 2009)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Three years ago, you were the 26th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, thank you so much Gerda! I really appreciate this...nice sentiment just when I needed a bit of a boost...thanks... Dreadstar ☥ 03:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Nice idea, - to look at the list for a boost ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1

Hello. I guess you have gone to bed and I am about to do the same. Just letting you know I have unblocked Dirtlawyer1 based on what I see to be a sincere demonstration that he understands the reasons for the block and has made a commitment to change. I made it clear in the block log that the block was correct and that the unblock was based on a commitment to change. I hope I have not gone against your wishes, but I think you would probably agree if you were here. Chillum 06:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Good call, Chillum; I'm in full agreement with you. Have a good night! Dreadstar ☥ 06:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Bernstein's at it again

Looks like he's continuing to make personal attacks on people he sees as pro-GG. Random ^(?) 19:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Am I misinterpreting, or did you just give him a second "final warning" about this? (Honest question, BTW - I'm not great with text...) Random ^(?) 02:23, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It may appear that way, but I see a difference in the latest from the earlier comments, so I am seeking to close the circle on variations by calling attention to how the current comments violate policy. Dreadstar ☥ 04:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)