Archives

1

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! --Actown ^e 02:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion 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. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[1] – The Daily Dot has not the slightest connection to Gawker Media whatsoever and you have expressed no grounds for removing it nor provided any consensus for doing so. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Huh, didn't know. Alright, then, it can stay. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 20:58, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested, the list of sources has been moved to the Gamergate controversy's talk page, though a link to the section is present in order to prove there are sufficient reliable sources to not consider the "misogyny perspective" to be neutral. Quite frankly, I'm not sure what my contribution to the ARBCOM will achieve, but I'm hoping it will help force a discussion on Wikipedia's neutrality. Akesgeroth (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, yeah, that much is fine. Thanks. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 18:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the statement, as you suggested. Note that I may not respond to further suggestions or provide further edits; as said, this is not a topic on which I wish to spend energy. Still, I thank you for your suggestions, again. Akesgeroth (talk) 00:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not technically true.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, didn't know. Duly noted - sorry about that. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 00:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For bravely entering in a heated debate and not giving into popular opinion.

DSA510 Pls No H8 06:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't edit anything at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case that isn't your own statement. ArbCom clerks can take care of anything else. You should probably self revert this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, does that make you the one organizing that exact information in the 8chan thread currently going on and presenting that exact evidence, found here, that you just presented in the Evidence page mere minutes later? Or are you the Wikipedian said person is in personal communication with in order to act as meatpuppet for their discussion? Silverseren^C 03:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Mr. Random, you might want to check out my post (CTRL-F) " 23:51, 26 November 2014 " Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate/Requests for enforcement to see if there's anything you missed out. starship.paint ~ regal 03:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time at the moment, but I will when I do. Thanks. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 03:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I went through the ANI case and filled in the blank by checking Reddit again. I don't doubt that 8chan is in an uproar over this, but no, I haven't been involved with them, nor do I plan to be. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 03:49, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even when your evidence are the exact links they have compiled over the past hour? You know what, nevermind. This needs to be pointed out in the evidence section directly. I'll just do that. Sorry for bothering you. Silverseren^C 03:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All but two of the links were from the ANI; those other two (the ones linking ryulong67 to our Ryulong) came from Google and an archive.today search (figured from the ANI it would be convenient). I suspect the former may have come from 8chan when presented (which would be why they're the same), but that's not where I got them. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 04:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]