Welcome back!

Hello! I see that you were on a wikibreak and have returned to the project. Welcome back! If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome back! — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 21:21, 19 January 2008 (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.

Template:Z33 Dreadstar ☥ 15:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This notice relates to Gamergate controversy, Zoe Quinn, Anita Sarkeesian, and related articles, talk pages and edits, but note this this alert applies to all edits related to the area identified above. Dreadstar ☥ 15:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 — ☎ 00:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this diff [1] your language is a major problem. I don't care about the swearing, but I do care about the ending. As you have been warned about General Sanctions twice, and this comment is in reference to that article, you are forcing me to consider simply topic banning you from that article or blocking you. Dennis - 2¢ 01:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've looked through your edits, and I'm on the fence. If another admin thinks further action is needed, I won't feel slighted in the least. Dennis - 2¢ 01:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Acroterion (talk) 01:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Agent Chieftain (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I had a lapse in judgment and snapped due to repeated frustration by users like Tarc and Ryulong, who continue to berate other users for simply talking civilly in the Talk page (go look at my most recent edit before the block to see how condescending Ryu is and how he constantly tries to derail arguments by judging the merits of a user's edits by how often they edit wikipedia). I understand why I was blocked, and it was a reasonable decision to do so, but if I am unblocked I will show much better restraint. Agent Chieftain (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per discussion below, note the topic ban: Gamergate, broadly construed, for 90 days. Acroterion (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not going to review this myself, although it is obvious I was on the fence (and think it was a fine decision) about blocking you. I notice you've worked on other stuff, maybe you should consider staying away from GamerGate for 3 months or something. That article has a way of bringing out the worst in lots of people, one reason I won't go over there and edit. I personally tend to be pretty forgiving, but I chose for this to not be my call. Out of curiosity, have you edited here before under a different name? There are plenty of valid reasons other than socking, so I'm not trying to "getcha", but you do seem to have given us a textbook perfect request for unblock that isn't typical for a new user, and my curiosity is piqued. Dennis - 2¢ 01:35, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• This is my original account that dates back to 2007, but I have used a few other accounts before due to either forgetting passwords, forgetting that this one even existed, etc. I'm generally pretty civil, but genuine frustration due to other users being hostile in an issue I care about caused me to snap in a moment of weakness, and I can admit that. There is a genuine cause for concern for the lack of neutrality on the Gamergate page as well as the conduct of some of the editors on the talk page, but as you said it's probably best I just wash my hands of the whole thing for the time being. Agent Chieftain (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a pretty forgiving guy, sometimes too much but that is better than not enough. Calling someone mentally challenged, using particular flavor, is a real hot button around here, and I would say justifiably so. We have a number of quality editors who are autistic, for example, and many of them are quite pleasant and hard working, so many of us take the use of that word as a weapon very strongly. What I would recommend is below to state that you are willing to accept a 90 day restriction from the GamerGate topic. Not because I think you are aren't able to contribute, but because I think this is the safest way to keep you from getting blocked again, and realistically, once you've been blocked, you are under a microscope for a while. And a clear statement that you understand that calling someone autistic or similar will result in an indef block again. This doesn't guarantee that an admin will lift the block, and they may want to mull it over for a day or so, but it would give you the best opportunity for an unblock. Dennis - 2¢ 01:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen few topics that generate such a high level of vitriol: not even the Middle East, for crying out loud. Gamergate is not exempt from normal BLP guidelines, and I'm not tolerant of discussions of people's intimate life as an excuse for criticism. There's plenty of condescension on both sides, and I am totally uninterested in that behavior: it goes with the territory. You don't get to lash out because you feel condescended to. I'm open to unblocking, provided you observe a topic ban, and provided you keep a cool head. That last edit was astoundingly nasty. As for the "autistic," Wikipedia wouldn't exist without people on the autism spectrum: you owe those people an apology. However, as Dennis notes, your request is a good first step. Acroterion (talk) 01:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept the topic ban and understand that my conduct was unacceptable. Agent Chieftain (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Topic restriction for 90 days? OK. Remember, it's an electric fence: you cross it and your'e blocked. Keep cool, and look out for other ways to improve the encyclopedia. Acroterion (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]