| Revision as of 22:10, 10 February 2015 editAnsFenrisulfr (talk | contribs)74 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:15, 11 February 2015 edit undoHJ Mitchell (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators121,842 edits →On your topic ban: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| An Arbitration Enforcement Request has been filed on you at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests ] (]) 22:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC) | An Arbitration Enforcement Request has been filed on you at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests ] (]) 22:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == On your topic ban == | |||
| FYI, your edits to the GamerGate talk page didn't violate your topic ban because you were removing BLP violations and explaining your rationale for doing so. That said, you really should take it off your watchlist and avoid the topic area entirely. That page is very well-watched, including by a lot of sensible people who won't hesitate to remove BLP violations—and then usually bring them to my attention or that of another admin. Your edits to Jimmy Wales' talk page, however, very much were in violation of your topic ban, and had they been reported while they were fresh, you almost certainly would have been blocked. I ''strongly'' recommend you avoid the topic area like the plague—for your own sake as much as anyone else's. A block is the inevitable result if you continue to involve yourself in the topic area beyond necessary BLP enforcement, and even then it would be much better to get somebody to remove it than to do it yourself—I'm sure you're aware that a topic-banned editor removing BLP violations is only likely to ] to the material, which is of course contrary to the stated purpose of the removal. Feel free to bring this sort of thing to my attention by email, or to alert any of the active editors in the topic area if you don' want to talk to me. ] | ] 14:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 14:15, 11 February 2015
I don't think we know each other, but I just want you to know that you have my sympathy for how the case went down, and my hope is that the vast majority of Wikipedians understand that there is a right side to the dispute, which is the side you were on. ArbCom has been making examples of out of people for years and it seems to often be a stretch, although I haven't reviewed all the diffs on behavior that they cited yet. I hope you continue as your efforts are appreciated. II | (t - c) 09:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Brianna Wu#Operation: Wu-Pocalypse
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Brianna Wu#Operation: Wu-Pocalypse. Hi, I put Brianna Wu on my watchlist to see if I could help bring a more civil process to it's editing, which I am sure is the intent of most of the editors. I see that you reverted some edits, & thought you should join in a discussion. There is an editor who would like to include some links & I am seeking your (pl.) guidance. Thanks. Peaceray (talk) 02:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48
Invitation
Hey, since we're both banned from a certain topic, why don't we join together in editing a topic of mutual interest? What say you? Cla68 (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
- I have absolutely no interest in contributing to a project which is actively punishing me for defending living people from a vicious, coordinated campaign of harassment and libel by anonymous trolls using the encyclopedia as a weapon of character assassination. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Arbitration rsult
Having stumbled on this whole GamerGate thing when the media began covering it, I read the decision relating to you, and I think you did right by the encyclopedia. Thanks for your work. No Matter How Dark (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Arbitration Enforcement Request
An Arbitration Enforcement Request has been filed on you at https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests AnsFenrisulfr (talk) 22:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
On your topic ban
FYI, your edits to the GamerGate talk page didn't violate your topic ban because you were removing BLP violations and explaining your rationale for doing so. That said, you really should take it off your watchlist and avoid the topic area entirely. That page is very well-watched, including by a lot of sensible people who won't hesitate to remove BLP violations—and then usually bring them to my attention or that of another admin. Your edits to Jimmy Wales' talk page, however, very much were in violation of your topic ban, and had they been reported while they were fresh, you almost certainly would have been blocked. I strongly recommend you avoid the topic area like the plague—for your own sake as much as anyone else's. A block is the inevitable result if you continue to involve yourself in the topic area beyond necessary BLP enforcement, and even then it would be much better to get somebody to remove it than to do it yourself—I'm sure you're aware that a topic-banned editor removing BLP violations is only likely to draw more attention to the material, which is of course contrary to the stated purpose of the removal. Feel free to bring this sort of thing to my attention by email, or to alert any of the active editors in the topic area if you don' want to talk to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:15, 11 February 2015 (UTC)