User talk:Snakebyte42

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Snakebyte42, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question.

I'm a regular mediator on the dispute resolution noticeboard, where I see you are currently involved in a content dispute with another editor. I've been watching the thread in question for some time, and even though the DRN mediator who has chosen to be involved (User:Guy Macon) seems to be doing an admirable job, I've noticed that you're starting to get a little frustrated in places. That's perfectly understandable. I don't know if anyone took into account the fact that you've only been registered on Wikipedia for about a week, so I thought I'd drop by your talk page and see if I can help you understand a few things. First, I highly suggest that you read the links provided above; they're the most basic instructions for editing on the project. However, I think you would also benefit by reading Wikipedia's version of "Keep Calm and Carry On" - it has a few tips that should help keep you from getting frustrated. You might also want to take a look at this page, which has advice for how to deal with particularly difficult editors. And, when it comes down to it, just remember that Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline. If you need to just edit other areas of the project or even just take a little break, that's fine too.

Also, try not to take anything anyone says personally; even if you disagree with them, they're all just trying to improve the encyclopedia. And just remember, I (and others) am here to help if you need me.

Again, welcome! Sleddog116 (talk) 15:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. 'Starting to get a little frustrated in places' might well be the understatement of the century. While I can understand how many of the issues that I have been accused of can crop up and the need for such measures, it seems absurd and ridiculous for these things to apply to what is essentially changing a handful of numbers. It's blowing my mind that this argument is still continuing, and what little support has been provided for the opposing viewpoint. I'm sure I've made edits here and there, and I appear to have had this account long before a week ago, it was just unused, but I try to avoid changing anything that isn't unarguably incorrect, like a typo, or, hah, a numbering error. Arguing about something that is so completely cut-and-dry from my viewpoint is not how I want to be spending my time, but I'm a stubborn asshole, so that's alright. I'd very much prefer not to have to read up on Wikipedia policies or, in general, descend into the morass of frustration that it seems to represent, I'd just like to win this argument or, though this is seeming increasingly unlikely, be shown to my satisfaction why I should lose this argument, and then descend back into the depths of anonymity, back to where people make sense.

Those are absolutely awesome links, though. First time I've been linked to a WP: page that hasn't made me want to punt a puppy into a blender. Glad to know you people have a sense of humor. EDIT: And thanks for the offer of assistance. I really had no idea what to do beyond reverts and yelling at people, initially. I should probably have twigged to there being other options. Snakebyte42 (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"Punt a puppy into a blender" made me lol. No problem - glad to help. I'd just hate to see you get scared off because I think you'll be a valuable contributor to the project once you learn the ropes a little. Where you said, "I'd just like to win this argument," I think that could be why you're getting so frustrated. Going into Wikipedia and trying to "win" anything -- ANYTHING -- is a bad idea that usually just results in all parties being frustrated. Collaboration is usually better. I've been on WP for about two years now, and in that time, I've discovered that even things that seem like they should be "completely cut-and-dry" rarely are. Reliable sources almost always speak louder than viewpoints. I guess what I'm really getting at is that this issue, when it comes down to it, is just not worth getting frustrated about. I'm not saying that you shouldn't continue getting the issue resolved in DRN, but just keep in mind that it's only the internet. Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
See, that's just it, I'd ordinarily completely agree with you, and that inherent murkiness is part of why I haven't cared enough to argue about anything on Wikipedia in the past, but this is at its core a very very simple thing being debated, and is a completely binary proposition--If the series in question is named 'The Punisher' or 'The Punisher: Purgatory'--which I've got two pictures of an issue from the series and two external links to support my stance on. Everything else follows based on the implication that the current title is incorrect, most of which I'd be glad to compromise on. It's hard for me to imagine a simpler issue, that can't be resolved as thoroughly and conclusively as this should have been. And while I get what you're saying, with all due respect, I don't think anything about the internet counts as 'only' in this day and age. Like it or not, Wikipedia is probably the most-used source in the world, despite how inherently unreliable it often is, and it frustrates me to see misinformation being spread. I've run into numerous people and one or two legitimate sources claiming that the current series is one volume lower than it should be, elsewhere, and now that I've found the source of that misconception I'd rather like to see it eradicated before it perpetuates even further.
Oh, and just for the record, I do know how arrogant and self-assured I tend to come across as, and how everything I've written could easily come across as 'I'm right and you're wrong regardless of what you say', as whatshisname accused me of doing over and over again rather than actually addressing my claims (good lord I hate that), but I wouldn't be anywhere near this strident if there had been even the slightest evidence provided for the opposing viewpoint. As far as I can gather, the only reason my edits were reverted was because they changed the article. And, really? I mean, really? Really! Comic organization just happens to be one of those things that I happen to know far too much about for my own good, though. The amount I've written about this issue makes my brain hurt.
EDIT: Seems I've spoken too soon. Victory is mine! Ish! Huzzah! \o/
...I'm allowed to be an ass on my own talk page, right? Snakebyte42 (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
To a certain extent, yeah. I guess you are allowed to do that. (Though I wouldn't get carried away.) My point, though, about wp:seriousbusiness was that Wikipedia will still be there at the end of the day - sorting through sources and determining which ones are the most correct and so forth is a process that takes time. Yeah, Wikipedia's a big deal. I know that. When I search for anything on Google, Wikipedia is almost always the first thing to pop up. I wasn't trying to say that you shouldn't take the project seriously. What I was trying to say is that you shouldn't take it personally. This guy that filed the DRN thread has been at this a long time, and he may not have realized that you haven't. You said it frustrates you to see "misinformation being spread." That's a frustrating thing, I know. But at the end of the day, is a fictional character really worth this much stress? I know your response to that (if you're anything at all like me) would be, "but it's the principle of the thing."
I think this issue has been rife with missteps on all sides. Fortdj33 and Guy Macon were somewhat WP:BITE-ey in their approach to the situation (you don't need to tell them so), but you can't really change them. Even though you may be right (and I'm not taking sides), statements like "Hey, look, here's you ignoring anything of substance again," though potentially true (again, not taking sides), are not productive. Where everyone (on the article and on DRN) has been talking to you about "addressing content," that's what they're getting at. You said just now, "I do know how arrogant and self-assured I tend to come across as". I know (based on the mere fact that you said it) that you probably don't intend to come across that way. The best way to avoid it is to talk about the article itself (and the edits to the article) rather than contributors themselves - in general, just avoid the second person altogether. Don't let your frustrations show; that stalls progress and makes it even more difficult for you to make your point. Sorry I'm going on here - I probably seem somewhat pretentious - but please understand that all of this is motivated by a genuine desire to help. Sleddog116 (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Oh, not at all. Guilty as charged. But what also isn't productive is telling me that the parts of my statements that deal with user actions are problematic, without simultaneously addressing article content, because that is in itself talking about user content and not productive. It was massive escalating repeats of this that were driving me up the wall. At least I'm staying on point. The most productive way to respond to me being in the wrong in such a manner would be to address the article itself, exactly like you just said, and ignore any personal comments I make unless I keep repeating it or am flat-out swearing at someone or something.
It seemed like the other user was falling back on technical crap to call me on rather than address any article content at all, and that was not only beyond infuriating, but hard to take impersonally. I lack the experience to go WP this, DRN that, so was repeatedly portrayed as the sole source of all problems and misbehaviour and was unable to rectify this without saying so, which, apparently, is also against the rules. From my perspective, the only reason provided for the continued reversions, even after multiple sources, were A: 'The article should stay the way the article was because it was that way for a reason' and B: 'I don't like the way you're talking to me'. Getting a book thrown at me that I didn't understand, rather than ever actually talking about the actual changes I made to the actual article, was very much not productive either.
Thanks for validating that I wasn't the only person fucking up here. And, though I know you know, the 'everyone' telling me things has been two people so far, unless you're counting yourself. But that's just me being overly sensitive. I appreciate the advice, I get where you're coming from, and it's nice to just bitch about it, too. Snakebyte42 (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────You said, "The most productive way to respond to me being in the wrong in such a manner would be to address the article itself, exactly like you just said, and ignore any personal comments I make unless I keep repeating it or am flat-out swearing at someone or something." I think you hit the nail on the head with that statement. Part of the problem here is that the other users didn't realize that you had no experience with the "technical crap," but you'll get all of that if you stay on WP for any length of time. You said that the problem is other users not "[ignoring] any personal comments [you] make," but the easiest way to fix that is to not make personal comments. My main point is that yeah, maybe the other guys screwed things up a bit (not saying they did - that isn't the point), but you can't fix them. You can fix you. I know you sometimes need to vent, too. That's fine - but I'd recommend that in the future you use other channels (you can even "bitch about it" on my talk page if that would help). There - I'm done with the advice for now. If you need help on anything else (or if you just want to rant), just ask me ;) Cheers. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: Oh, and sorry - one last thing. It seems like I'm telling you everything wrong with how you're handling the situation, but you are, in fact, doing some things right. Your last response to Fortdj33 on DRN (though it was still a little direct) was good because you were looking for points of agreement, so I see you're trying to work constructively. If he still comes back snapping at you, do not reply in kind. The best bet there is to ignore the personal remarks and move on, even if he has no intention of doing the same. Sleddog116 (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Sure. That's something I know to do now, and things do indeed seem to be progressing towards resolution. I didn't then, and they weren't then. Calling Fortdj33 out on his behaviour was the only thing I could think to do that would possibly get anywhere, as opposed to backing down and allowing the misinformation to stand. The article content wasn't being addressed, and I didn't have the faintest idea what to do about that other than say so until he listened. There was a point where I had made my arguments and the only alternative to making a personal comment would have been not to comment at all, since I had said my piece about article content and been ignored. I'm not offering this as an excuse for my comments, just an explanation... and there's plenty of things I said that wouldn't fall under that excuse if I was using it as one. Snakebyte42 (talk) 19:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion[edit]

Hello, Snakebyte42. I'm not trying to add fuel to the fire here, but I thought that we had come to some sort of understanding on the dispute resolution noticeboard. But then you decided to attack me again on the List of The Punisher comics talk page, based on comments I made BEFORE we had our discussion! Therefore, this message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding this issue. Thank you. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh for god's sake, don't you ever stop? Insults are insults. If you don't want me to respond to them, don't make them, or remove them if you already have. Snakebyte42 (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.--Guy Macon (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
No. I will not be told that I am the only one out of line when this user has been getting away with maligning me under the guise of condemning my actions. I'm done. I'm not missing the fact that this warning only appears on my talk page, or the allegations you made about me on the other user's talk page without even reading the relevant comments. I am far, far far far from amused. Snakebyte42 (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012[edit]

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. Your behaviour is verging on harassment. Wikipedia prides itself on providing a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing edits, such as the one you made to Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance, potentially compromise that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Really? I'm insulted repeatedly, and I'm the one being accused of harassment? Take a fucking reality check. A safe environment does not include insulting me on every page I look and continuing to make arbitration topics on every forum under the sun. I have instigated nothing. I've followed no one nowhere. I am simply responding to slander. Snakebyte42 (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did above. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
That's not an attack. At all. Please identify which parts of that comment even address you directly? Is this part of your stated objective to hit me with a 'series of warnings, followed by a series of blocks of increasing length, followed by an indefinite block from Wikipedia'? Is this how you were going to 'personally see to' forcing me off this website, by abandoning all neutrality, without even reading the material in question? Snakebyte42 (talk) 23:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
"Take a fucking reality check" is a personal attack. You have two choices. Either you voluntarily stop violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, or you will receive a series of warnings (this counts as one of them), followed by a series of blocks of increasing duration, followed by an indefinite block. Wikipedia has run into this sort of unacceptable behavior many times before, and we have an escalating series of warnings and blocks that are designed to convince you to stop your disruptive behavior. If the warnings and blocks are not effective and you continue this behavior, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia indefinitely. One way or the other, you are going to stop. Do you want to do this the easy way or do you want to do this the hard way?
I would also mention that "he did it to me first, so the rules don't apply to me!!" is not an acceptable excuse. If someone has been uncivil to you, feel free to report it to WQA with a link to the specific statement. If you are uncivil in return, you will end up blocked. If you fail to calmly report the other person for violating WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, he/she may very well escape notice. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
You're right, it isn't. I was going for "You aren't paying attention to him doing it, so if I do it enough times, maybe you'll notice both of us". But now you've clearly stated your bias against me, so I don't really see much of a need to listen to you at all. I have no idea how to report someone for violating anything, and since you seem more inclined to yell at me and ban me, I don't now, either. Again, I don't see how 'Take a fucking reality check' is an attack. It was not intended as one. Profanity can frequently be used as an intensifier without any insult being directed at the object of speech (ex. 'Take a fucking reality check' as opposed to 'Take a reality check, you fucker!') and 'reality check' is an informal way of saying 're-examine the situation'. If I've inadvertantly offended you in that particular instance, I do apologize. Only this once, when I did not say anything I consider to be an attack, did I say 'the rules don't apply to me'. Every other time I've said 'the rules apply to him.' But I don't think there are any rules at all, coming from you, especially when you reverted consensus on the page in dispute, apparently out of spite. You've recused yourself from the dispute. Why are you continuing to harass me? Snakebyte42 (talk) 00:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
This will be my last comment on this. Any further accusations from you will be ignored. I am allowed to make one edit to a page to a version that I think is better. Your claims that doing so is somehow wrong shows a severe case of WP:OWNERSHIP. Your repeated false accusations that making a single edit to a page to a version that I think is better is somehow evidence of imagined "spite" is about a clear a violation of WP:AGF as I have ever seen. I am done interacting with you as of now, and I would very much appreciate it if you would ignore me in return. I am unwatching this page now so I will not see any reply and be tempted to respond. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
No, my claims that doing so is somehow wrong come from the timing, the fact that it was against consensus, and the fact that as far as I'm aware you've had no involvement with that page aside from the dispute that was brought to you, that you claimed you had no time to read up on, and that the relevant part of was deemed settled by the other participants. Please stop making spurious accusations. It wasn't even my edit! You directly stated that you were acting in bad faith. I have no reason to assume otherwise. I very much appreciate that you're unwatching my page, and aside from this I won't bother you any further. The last thing I want right now is for this to drag out any longer. Snakebyte42 (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


Hi, I know that Sleddog116 has taken over the case and it is not my intention to interfere in that process. I just wanted to stop by and encourage you to hang in there. Wikipedia can take a bit of time to get used to, and editing can certainly be frustrating at times. I remember one particular article I was editing a few years ago. It was a medicine-related article with lots of sources of varying quality. One editor had a particular point of view and was very adept at arguing (against several other editors) for the inclusion of his/her sources and for the exclusion of certain other sources which did not support that point of view. Although the discussion remained civil, it was extremely tense. I, and other editors, engaged in lengthy discussions with this editor, but we weren't able to make any progress. Since I was starting to feel frustrated, I decided to cease working on that article.
I took a quick look at it a couple days ago and .... guess what? .... the same people are still involved and still trying to advance their points of view -- over two years later! I don't need that kind of aggravation and I am happy I halted my involvement with it a long time ago. I also do a lot of vandalism-related work, so I've been called all sorts of names and had my userpage vandalized. At first I took it a bit personally, but now I just find it funny!
I know that if you keep editing around Wikipedia you'll learn how to avoid or manage the frustrations, just as I did. Best wishes! Taroaldo (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your input. You caught me right on the peak of rage at the tail end of a long drawn-out and frustrating process that I felt I had very little control over. I'm going to tweak my most recent comments in Wikiquette slightly since things appear to have been settled with Guy Macon. At this point, I believe consensus was more or less reached, we just went for eachother's throats over personal issues just before it was finalized. The main article is locked for another few days; I plan to edit it once, and then allow the other editor to make whatever changes he pleases. The secondary article was already edited by him to my satisfaction.

...I got sidetracked and did other things elsewhere and don't have a damn clue what I was saying. You don't care about the particulars. In summation, I think everything's resolved, and I've got no reason to hang around. That was far from enjoyable. This was all to get one specific change affected (or to receive a convincing reason why it wouldn't be). You must have a much calmer temperament than mine, good lord. Snakebyte42 (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I am glad that the situation is easing a bit! I don't know how calm my temperament is, but I've learned through experience that if I get frustrated it won't solve the problem and only makes me feel miserable. If you continue to give Wikipedia a chance, I know you'll successfully adjust to the frustrations too! Taroaldo (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Pie for you[edit]

It is my pleasure to present:[edit]

Resilient Barnstar.png The Resilient Barnstar
For all of your work with the comic-related articles. You're doing a great job contributing to those articles without losing your cool, even after that rough start that you had. Cheers! Sleddog116 (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Marvel NOW![edit]

No problem, its much better when we can work together.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

BLP Discretionary sanctions notice[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Dreadstar 22:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This notice relates to Gamergate controversy, Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, and related articles and edits, but note this this alert applies to all edits related to the area identified above. Dreadstar 22:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)


I've blocked you indefinitely for violating WP:BLP policy and disruptive editing. Dreadstar 22:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I have done no such thing. Snakebyte42 (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Snakebyte42 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

The statement I made was a typo, taken out of context, which I clearly clarified in later comments. I was discussing whether various allegations were notable enough to include in an article about controversial allegations, and was attacked by people who misunderstood this. This is ridiculous. I made one comment on a talk page that people misunderstood, and you've prevented me from editing an entire site? That's all I've done in the last month. There is no pattern here. I have never edited a Gamergate-related article, nor have I expressed any inclination to. I cannot imagine what possessed you to block me.

Decline reason:

While nobody at all came out of this situation looking good, I agree with the blocking administrator that the commentary you added to that discussion was egregious. When speaking about living people on Wikipedia, whether in an article or on a talk page, our policies require that we treat them with sensitivity. There is no world in which discussing a woman in terms of her "desire for penis" or a man in terms of his "throbbing shaft" is treating those subjects with the sensitivity and neutrality that our policies require of you, even if you weren't already in a bit of a hole as far as the accuracy of the allegations you were making. It's not "slightly over the line, oops, let me rephrase that"; it's "why in the world would someone say that about another human being?", and it's not ok, do not pass go, do not collect $200.

This block, let me stress, needn't be infinite. I expect that if you can commit to approaching topics involving living people with tact and sensitivity in the future, you will be allowed to return to editing. It's not about "rawr, Snakebyte42 can never edit Wikipedia again!", it's about "wow, as long as Snakebyte42 talks about living people like that, we really can't allow them to go on doing so here." A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:50, 11 October 2014 (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.

  • For reviewing admin, [1] and even this one: [2]. More info at this ANI report. Also, if I'm not around, reviewing admin feel free to change or remove the block as you see fit.Dreadstar 22:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
That's a talk page. A talk page that I had stopped commenting on quite politely when I stopped being attacked. I have never edited the actual article, nor did I have any intentions of doing so. Or commenting anywhere else. Or on any related articles. I've been banned for people misrepresenting my statements and opinions. I can't be accused of disruptive edits if I'm not actually editing anything.
WP:BLP applies to any and all Wikipedia pages, including article and user talk pages. Dreadstar 22:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

<redacted> - This isn't a video game, where if you can find some loophole or work-around to the rules you win. --Calton | Talk 01:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fluffernutter: Is 'that' what the problem is? It sure would have been nice if that was made clear to me. That was not the accusation that I understood was levied. I have no further interest in this topic, or even in editing on Wikipedia in the immediate future. I would like to be unblocked. If you'd like to ban me from all Gamergate-related topics as insurance of good behaviour, that's absolutely fine. Could I have some links to those policies, too?

Well, the problem is that you have sort of been playing fast and loose with these living people and their reputations, in general, with your comments. Speaking about them in derogatorily sexual language is one aspect of it; repeatedly re-asserting disproven allegations is another. It's all part and parcel, and it adds up to an impression that you don't really grok how to approach topics about living people - or at least these living people - in a manner consistent with policy. I'm not saying it happened because you were purposely like "lulz imma insult these people", but Wikipedia is in a position where things said here go around the world instantly, whether they're true or not and whether they were meant harmfully or not. In a case where real people have already been maligned and we're trying to cover that, we need to be more careful, not less, about repeating the same mistakes in what will be interpreted as "Wikipedia's" voice. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fluffernutter: I understand. See my updated unblock request below. I would like my account back, but I do not wish to contribute in this or any other similar areas anymore. I'm fine with staying out of potential BLP areas entirely. Snakebyte42 (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Snakebyte42. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 00:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Tutelary (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Calton, please keep your vendettas off my talk page. I do not support Gamergate. I do not want to edit the Gamergate page. I do not know why I am blocked. It is that simple. Snakebyte42 (talk) 01:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unblock of Snakebyte42. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Snakebyte42 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

Fluffernutter's right. No one took the time to tell me that was the statement that people referring to. I was under the impression that it was for making allegations about living people--something I emphatically did not do, I was discussing the merits of including existing allegations in the article. This is the first time I've been genuinely spoken to and not treated like a disposable tool of GamerGate or something. In short, sure. No problem. I don't want to edit Gamergate or anything related to Gamergate. I'll accept a topic ban from anything you think is relevant, and I won't pursue any kind of arbitration. I'd just like my account unblocked. My involvement with Wikipedia's Gamergate articles was done before this happened and I'm not a regular contributor, there's no chance of a repeat performance. I'd also like specific links to the parts of policies that talk about that, so I'm better aware of them in the future, if that's alright See 'Pro-GamerGate/SPA accusations at ANI' section below for addressing some of the comments on my ANI. I am aware this is not the reason for my block, but many are acting like it is, so I feel it's necessary to address as well.

Accept reason:

See reasoning here, and note below re topic bans. Euryalus (talk) 01:46, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP -- in short, don't post anything -- especially negative derogatory stuff -- anywhere on Wikipedia about a living person unless it's backed up by reliable sources WP:RS. Which are like major newspapers (nytimes, washington post) and magazines (time, the atlantic). (At least in the US, I'm not as up to speed on sources in other countries). NE Ent 02:50, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay. My mistake was in assuming it had to be a factual claim, or in an article. But it makes sense that normal free speech standards don't apply on Wikipedia, after a second's thought. The kind of content you have is important, your discourse is under public scrutiny, and it reflects on the entire project. Got it. Thank you for taking the time. Snakebyte42 (talk) 02:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

There was a scandal back in 2005, the Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident, that has made the community very vigilant about preventing a repeat. And yes, Wikipedia is privately owned by the Wikimedia Foundation so participation is subject to the terms and conditions of the site, not the rules regarding public discourse. NE Ent 03:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, sure, but I'm personally not all that content with a private corporation telling me what I can and can't say. They certainly can do it, but I'd meet it with criticism. That's not what this is, though. There's a logical and practical reason to be as un-inflammatory as possible, so I'm on board.Snakebyte42 (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I got your email about my comment on ANI. For the record, I don't oppose unblocking you personally, I just oppose overturning your block via the process outlined at ANI. It seems like you are on the right track here and I imagine that you will be unblocked quite soon. Gamaliel (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

It's cool, I absolutely got that from your comment there! Thanks for reading and responding. Snakebyte42 (talk) 04:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Pro-GamerGate/SPA accusations at ANI[edit]

Multiple editors in my ANI are painting me as a SPA bent on slanting the Gamergate article towards a specific fringe viewpoint. If I may take part of Protonk's comment specifically:

"I think the block was fine and oppose an unblock, largely because this is just another account that has been resurrected to steer the content of the GamerGate article to a fringe viewpoint (namely that the incidents related to gamergate are unrelated to harassment or sexism but instead are just some innocent investigation into journalistic integrity in games)."

This is simply false. I do not support that viewpoint and I was not editing to support that viewpoint. I had a very specific and singular objection to one comment made by one editor on the talk page, that editor responded and my objection was addressed. I then moved on from the talk page. The fact that I got into an argument with people apparently supporting the opposite viewpoint to the one I'm being accused of supporting does not mean that I support it, it simply means that I object to their behaviour and their mischaracterization of me.

I do not have a position on GamerGate. I had a very specific point to make to one editor and conveyed it successfully. I do not edit wikipedia often, but I do not believe this is a crime. I created an ANI solely due to the degree of hostility with which I was received, and continue to be received. In my past experiences with Wikipedia I was assumed to be editing in good faith and treated civilly. I do not understand why this is not the case now and why I was blocked indefinitely instead of being given the benefit of the doubt. It took the reviewing admin to even explain my offense.

I do not understand why I am still punitively, rather than preventatively, blocked. Snakebyte42 (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

You are not being punitively blocked. You are awaiting a review of your current unblock request which hopefully will be accepted, or if not, you'll received specific feedback on what steps are necessary. In meantime, I suggest you unwatch the ANI thread --if anyone has something important to say to you specifically, they can post it her on your talk page. NE Ent 20:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
This does not change the fact that the block was punitive rather than preventative. I was not engaged in any sort of disruptive or BLP-violating behaviour when it was applied, and I was given no warning or explanation until I filed an unblock request. It was for something I DID, not something I WAS DOING, and at no point prior was it communicated to me what I had done wrong or why it was wrong. Snakebyte42 (talk) 20:23, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
The block is preventing you from making any further BLP violating edits until such time as it's clear to a reviewing admin you understand the concerns such that the encyclopedia can again benefit from your contributions. NE Ent 22:45, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
I had gone for 20 minutes without making any before the block was applied. Any kind of warning or communication would have done the job. Snakebyte42 (talk) 22:51, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate topic ban. BLP topic ban.[edit]

Hi. Per Arbcom's Discretionary Sanctions and the outcome of this discussion, you are topic-banned indefinitely from edits and discussion regarding Zoe Quinn, GamerGate and any related articles, broadly construed. I note your acknowledgement of BLP issues, and also this offer, which I think is a good idea. I've also logged a six-month topic ban from all BLPs, but am happy to discuss a shorter period if you wish.

In passing, the two topic bans are independent of each other - the Gamergate one continues after the other one has expired. Happy to discuss, ideally on my talk page. Euryalus (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a note, this is a fraught area, both on and off wiki. I have spent a considerable amount of time exploring the (off-wiki) issues, and it seems to me that there is a more than normal imperative to classify people as "pro-" or "anti-", and also that this is evident on-wiki also. Those involved with this dispute are not just the "usual suspects", and really the articles are not that important, so I would urge you not to take this as personal, just one of those undesirable outcomes of an imperfect system and imperfect people. All the best: Rich Farmbrough01:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC).