User talk:YellowSandals

Welcome!

Hello, YellowSandals, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Tutelary (talk) 19:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Gamaliel (talk) 00:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

This is your only warning; if you add defamatory content to Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Acroterion (talk) 00:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Activity on GG page

I noticed your activity on the gamergate talk page, and I'm relieved to see more editors with a somewhat "neutral" stance (that is of course just my honest opinion) are coming to take part in the ongoing dispute about the neutrality of the article. I think as more editors get involved, it is guaranteed that the article will become more "balanced" or objective, if it isn't already balanced enough. No doubt some people will attempt to discredit your opinions by calling you a SPA, please pay no mind to them if your goal is indeed the betterment of the article per WP's policies, guidelines and generally to represent information in an encyclopedic spirit. Thank you. 188.23.94.98 (talk) 00:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Nip Gamergate in the bud. Thank you. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GG Talk Page

I just made a change to try to fix some threading with a conversation you're involved with. Your change made it look like Masem was replying to you instead of Tarc. I believe you may need another ':' in front of your comment, but I wasn't sure if you were reply to Tarc or not. I apologize if my edit messed anything up Strongjam (talk) 16:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general 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. RGloucester — ☎ 00:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above notice, you need to stop beating the dead horse about "not being neutral" because the article does not give "equal time" to what some gamergaters claim the "movement" is about. Read Wikipedia's policies and if you cannot follow or understand them your time editing on the topic of gamergate is going to be very short indeed. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:34, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know perfectly well that my consistent complaint has had nothing to do with giving anyone undue weight. My issue has been with the biased tone of the article, which has been and will continue to be a subject of debate independently of my own stance. I recognize you want to establish strict lines of morality for the reader, but in doing so you merely write a confusing, inept article. Additionally, I have made numerous attempts at broaching this broad problem in different ways, ranging with a variety of compromises and suggestions. I wish the same could be said of you and your compatriots, but it seems you are beating the dead horse by insisting that the article's subject is evil and that those evils need to be the core of the article. YellowSandals (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, my approach to this topic has been very conservative, and at no point have I made any direct edits to the article. I considered stepping in to make some phrasing and readability edits after Maseum made his attempt at a more neutral lead, but you immediately dismissed the re-write without consensus and without allowing the re-write to stand for any length. Which is unfortunate, because Maseum's re-write would have been much easier to work with than the winded laundry list of accusations currently being used as lead for the article. YellowSandals (talk) 16:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a FYI, I believe the policy you are arguing to be enforced is WP: IMPARTIAL. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

There is a discussion relating to an issue you've been involved on currently at WP:ANI. The discussion is here -- TaraInDC (talk) 22:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about others

Do not discuss other editors on article talk pages as you did here per WP:TPNO, WP:CIV and WP:NPA - follow WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE instead. If you persist you risk being sanctioned per Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate, which is very clear about strictly folliwng WIkipedia Conduct policies and The Purpose of Wikipedia. Dreadstar ☥ 06:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Gamergate controversy

Regarding this, please stop with that comparison. A user has already complained about this (also I'd consider it a false equivalence.) If you want to continue with this debate please consider using a less sensitive topic to compare the article with. -- Strongjam (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to say. If you don't feel it's appropriate to discuss one group being judged by a moral metric, then it should not be appropriate anywhere. I've brought up Hitler and the Klu Klux Klan in the past as well, citing they are also not judged by a moral standard on Wikipedia. I promote the impartial tone of the homosexuality page. I have been promoting impartiality on the Gamergate page. If you find impartiality to be inappropriate, you should not be editing Wikipedia. YellowSandals (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware of WP:NOTFORUM and focus comments accordingly. Not saying you violated it, but just for awareness. Dreadstar ☥ 18:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For your own sake

I'm going to ask that you stop it. If this ends up at a noticeboard, the Neo Nazi remark will be plastered all over and used as the symbol for your block/block appeal. I sympathize with your view's on the page being biased, but that's not the way it should be argued for, regardless of supposed similarities. I don't say this to be mean but to be blunt--people won't see it your way. Tutelary (talk) 23:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I'll relent on it. YellowSandals (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I was just going to leave you a note about it. Dreadstar ☥ 23:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

Hello, I'm Strongjam. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Gamergate controversy that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. In particular this comment has been removed by another editor. Please remember to comment on the content, not the editor on article talk pages. Strongjam (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please use dispute resolution for user conduct issues

Just so you know, the reason why I performed this edit was to keep the talk page focused on improving the article. From your very personal attack it's clear that you think certain editors are not engaged on Wikipedia in good faith. That should be resolved by following the dispute resolution process. On this particular topic the best place to start, assuming you've tried and failed to resolve the issue using user talk pages and the like, is Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement. --TS 22:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GS/GG/E

Thread notification.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on content, not on contributors

While you are welcome to suggest and discuss improvements to article content, please do so without commenting on other editors or speculating as to their motives. Should you feel that any editor is behaving disruptively, please use the enforcement mechanisms to bring the matter to the attention of administrators (currently WP:GS/GG/E). Further personal comments about editors on article talk pages may result in sanctions. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews

I have not been interviewed by The Guardian: I'd appreciate your correcting this speculation on the talk page where you made it. The quotations in the article were taken from essays I wrote concerning the draft decision. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on content not others

Next time you make an inappropriate comment about another editor like this one, you'll be sanctioned. Dreadstar ☥ 18:00, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Topic Ban

After reviewing your history, and discussing your behavior with other admins, I see that you've been warned about this kind of behavior multiple times - yet you persist in violating policy. I'm imposing upon you an indefinite ban on 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 per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Dreadstar ☥ 18:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine. It's a frustrating page and I think it eventually brings out a certain unpleasantness in anyone who gets involved with it. I learned a lot about Wikipedia from watching proceedings and trying to negotiate with powerful editors, anyway. Thank you for your patience, but I don't think I made much difference at any stage of my rhetoric and it'll save me from myself if I can't fiddle with it any more. YellowSandals (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement block

To enforce an arbitration decision and for breaching your topic ban imposed pursuant to the GamerGate arbitration case with this comment, you have been blocked from editing for a period of three days. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

I'm not going to argue about the justification of this action. It's flimsy but I know that doesn't matter because I'm nobody and therefore weak. However, I hope you guys are having some internal discussion about how theatrics and "privileged" users turn your whole system into a ridiculous circus, and it's going to get you in the news more often if it keeps up. I think part of the reason the number of editors is shrinking is because Wikipedia has established an environment where new users without connections are basically prey to more belligerent users who know the admins well. You genuinely have influential people with a quote in their profiles that reads: "A project which [disagrees with my relative world views] does not deserve to survive." I'm just so utterly unimpressed with you guys. Congrats on finding the moxie to punish my tiredness, but please. There are people with a ton more energy who are obviously getting lighter punishment for doing fantastically more damage than I am, because all I'm getting sanctioned for is my sardonic complaining. You could ban me forever, and that's all you'd be free of. A perma-ban is not what I'm seeking, but I just think of myself as not really all that much of an immediate problem for the website. YellowSandals (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]