How can you roundly say my accusations are "seemingly baseless" when I provided extensive diffs and made a coherent argument? How can it honestly be said that a response like Maybe you aren't used to strong, powerful, assertive women. to someone who is complaining about personal attacks, doesn't contain a nanogram of snark? How can anyone say I'm WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, when I'm pointing out that someone's decision to remove articles from the encyclopedia might have a biased and/or political motive? Why does everyone get to summarily dismiss me without addressing any of my arguments, and generally treat me as unworthy of respect? I don't understand any of this.
And if Viriditas isn't an admin, why are they closing ANI discussions? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Look, if you show up anonymously and jump right into a heated debate and favor one side strongly then you can expect people to give you less credence. I suggest you create an account and gain a reputation as a reasonable person and then try controversial areas. Closing a discussion is not an admin tool. Chillum 04:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
On wikipedia, justice is not blind. In short, it is not enough to merely report a violation of the rules and expect something to be done, the admins have to think you are a person worthwhile to spend their time protecting and hearing your case. If someone violates the written rules of wikipdia, but the victim isn't someone who any admins sympathize with, any complaint will likely be dismissed and no action will be taken against the offender. Likewise, if the offender is someone sympathetic (like MarkBernstein who has received at least 11 "final warnings" for his bad behavior by my count) the offender can be expected to receive no major punishment. My advice to you: Get some edit history, become a more sympathetic person, list anything could give you more sympathy points on wikipedia on your profile (like if you are female, etc.), and be nice and befriend some admins. After that, you will be much more successful if someone breaks the rules on you. Lose the WP:SPA stigma by diversifying your edits and edit controversial topics only sparingly—especially if the information you add is flattering to a perspective far in the minority among active admins. As it stands right now, someone could even violate a topic ban handed down to them from ArbCom itself to hurl epithets and personal attacks at other editors, but if the person reporting it is an unsympathetic SPA, no action will be taken against the offender (like with the NorthBySouthBaranof situation). 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Why should justice on wikipedia be based on who your friends are? Isn't this the sort of culture and attitude that has been blamed for driving women away from Wikipedia? Is the point of Wikipedia to be fair and impartial or to protect those who use their powers in favor of their friends?188.8.131.52 (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Who are you suggesting are my friends? I think you are seeing conspiracies where there are none. Your complaint was closed for lacking merit. Please don't see Wikipedia as a source of "justice", we are here to make an encyclopedia not to satisfy your sense of fairness. I suppose if you really want to you could file a complaint against me, but I really think it would be seen as lacking merit.
If you are going to continue to switch IPs then I suggest you create an account to avoid the appearance of sock puppetry if you want to keep editing in contentious areas. If you decide not to register an account take care not to participate in the same debate with two different identities. Chillum 16:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I think you have me confused with the 2 other IP users in this thread. I was just giving sound, general advice for a new user trying to deal with a rule-breaker on wikipedia. There is no grand conspiracy when it comes to the double-standards of treatment towards misbehavior on wikipedia. It's accually pretty simple: an editor that admins don't have much sympathy for (say one of a flood of IP editors editing a controversial topic) is unlikely to have admins who think their complaints of other editors' rule-breaking are worth investigating——or even if investigated, to not severely punish an offender that admins have a lot of sympathy for. Additionally, friends generally like helping out other friends, and that doesn't magically change when one of the friends holds the title of "admin." A complaint by a friend of an admin is more likely to be taken seriously by that admin, etc. It's just common sense. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes I have been confused by the large number of IPs in this thread. I have lost track of who is saying what. It would be great if one or two of you could register accounts. Chillum 23:34, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
this is my first ever comment on Wikipedia, sorry I think I had the formatting wrong.220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I thought based on the topic of conversation and the type of wording you used that you were the same as user:18.104.22.168? Are you a different IP with no history seeking justice? Chillum 16:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
If you're talking to me, I'm a completely different user.. have not commented anywhere on wikipedia before.22.214.171.124 (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
If you are a completely new user then what are you basing your comments on? What justice are you talking about, who do you think my friends are? If you are a completely new user then you have not provided the context to your comments that I need to understand them. Please link me to the area that you are concerned about. Chillum 17:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm referring to the above comment by "126.96.36.199." That was whom I originally intended to reply to.188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Okay I see now. I was confused because I did not see how a brand new user would find their way here and assumed you were the same person with a different IP. Thank you for clarifying. Chillum 17:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
I read a few articles about bias and inappropriate behavior in the "ruling class" on wikipedia. I've dealt with people like this before and I've seen them ruin many many good things. I've been learning a lot about the protocols here and how things operate. It's disappointing to say the least, but I hope I can be an influence for impartiality and to help build a more objective Wikipedia. You should probably delete this whole distracting line of comments to clean things up so it doesn't detract from the main issue here. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
No need to delete this discussion, it is not a distraction. I apologize if I jumped to conclusions, this particular topic has drawn a lot of negative attention. Regarding articles about our ruling class, I would suggest that journalism is not particularly concerned with accuracy and likely more interested in sales.
Thankfully Wikipedia is a completely transparent place. Our arbcom hearings and decision discussions are logged for all to see. We have taken great effort to make sure our decision making process is available to everyone, it is a pity that journalists rarely take advantage of this resource and instead report rumors from disgruntled users.
I hope to see you around. Unless your editing here is going to be minor you should consider making an account in order to give the false appearance of support for their position. The main issue with gender equality topics on Wikipedia is that we people who use more than one IP or account to pretend to be more than one person. This has been done by people on either side of the debate. As a result users without accounts and brand new users are treated with a certain level of skepticism to prevent people creating a false sense of support for one side. This can result in a less than ideal first experience on Wikipedia.
Please feel free to ask me if you have any questions about this place. It is complex. Chillum 17:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, with some of the reactions I've seen to minor edits from those who feel as if they own wikipedia, I am very hesitant to do any editing at this time for fear of unwittingly offending someone connected to the administration here. I hope I can be a moderating influence on the meta-discussion, though. It's not just gender equality, it's anything involving recent events which have a political slant. I think wikipedia as a whole would benefit if people placed more emphasis on content and less emphasis on personality.220.127.116.11 (talk) 17:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Again, we have a lot of IPs being used to disrupt certain contentious topic areas. New users and anonymous users are going to encounter a more difficult than normal time if they choose to edit controversial areas because of this. It is not out of spite, or a sense of ownership. It is a reaction to literally hundreds of anonymous users being disruptive in the area.
Accounts are free, and they don't require any personal information. They allow you to hide your IP(and thus be more anonymous) while establishing yourself and a reasonable person who is on Wikipedia out of interest for the project and not just further a specific bias. If you have an established history of being able to be neutral and reasonable then you will see that you are more able to edit in controversial area. Chillum 18:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Well if they could voluntarily stay away from each other there would be no issue. When I see several people asking one person to drop the stick it is a red flag. I have given my advice to this user to be proactive in avoiding this user, if it is taken great if not then the community may have to decide. Chillum 02:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Well hopefully EC gets the message that she is attracting that kind of attention. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:29, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Replying to your ping Knowledgekid87, I know you've always responded everywhere that has to do with Rationalobserver, but I've barely had any interaction with her. When she posted on my talk page recently supporting Lightbreather's accusations, I ignored her. I posted on her talk page a long time ago suggesting that Eric Corbett was a good GA editor (that was before all her bad mouthing of him on her page) meaning to be helpful, but haven't posted again until recently when I asked her what she was doing by her Donner Party related stuff, as a warning to wake her up.
I suggested on Coffee's page under "Something good can come of this", that she take up jbmurray's offer of help, after he took time to carefully answer all her comments. I thought it would look good and help her out out her current situation by doing something constructive. After my suggestion, she did seem to take up his offer which she had been ignoring before. EChastain (talk) 02:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey Chillum. Today, I ran across User:Fuckthepaganmotorcylegang which was properly reported by DeltaQuadBot to WP:UAA. The account isn't blocked as of now, or at least not through the normal means. In looking at the accounts contributions  (there are non) I saw a highlighted notice near the top of the page that says "This account is globally locked. See global account details for more information." which links to this. I am not sure what the impact of this is? Does this mean the account is blocked from editing on a global level or blocked from account creation on any other project available under global, or ...? If it is blocked from editing, I'm curious how HBC AIV helperbot would handle that? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
I asked on IRC and it seems the globally locked means they cannot even log in on any mediawiki project. Since that is the case by bot should remove it, however it currently has no mechanism to detect off-en-wikipedia blocke/locks. Such names will have to be removed manually until I have some time to look into if this is something I can detect via the API. Chillum 18:09, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Must be a recently added feature, post global unified login. I'm glad they have it. I just hope there's a mechanism to detect when that happens. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)