| Revision as of 15:30, 25 March 2015 editHJ Mitchell (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators121,847 edits →AE and 1RR: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 16:36, 25 March 2015 edit undoGamaliel (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators94,016 edits →Topic ban: new sectionNext edit → | ||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
| FYI, the 1RR on the gamergate article is there to prevent disputes from getting out of hand, as they were prior to the discretionary sanctions. It's not meant to be an impediment to normal editing, just to prevent endless edit-warring. If somebody violates it unknowingly or in good faith, it's preferable to try to resolve the issue informally before requesting enforcement. Big sticks like enforcement should generally be a last resort, unless there's an ongoing pattern of disruptive editing or there are BLP concerns or other very good reasons to escalate matters. Thanks, ] | ] 15:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | FYI, the 1RR on the gamergate article is there to prevent disputes from getting out of hand, as they were prior to the discretionary sanctions. It's not meant to be an impediment to normal editing, just to prevent endless edit-warring. If somebody violates it unknowingly or in good faith, it's preferable to try to resolve the issue informally before requesting enforcement. Big sticks like enforcement should generally be a last resort, unless there's an ongoing pattern of disruptive editing or there are BLP concerns or other very good reasons to escalate matters. Thanks, ] | ] 15:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | ||
| == Topic ban == | |||
| {{Ivmbox | |||
| |2=Commons-emblem-hand.svg | |||
| |imagesize=50px | |||
| |1=The following sanction now applies to you: | |||
| {{Talkquote|1=Standard GG topic ban for 12 months. "Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed."}} | |||
| You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to ]. | |||
| This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an ] under the authority of the ]'s decision at ] and, if applicable, the procedure described at ]. This sanction has been recorded in the ]. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the ] to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be ] for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions. | |||
| You may appeal this sanction using the process described ]. I recommend that you use the ] if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.<!-- Template:AE sanction.--> ] <small>(])</small> 16:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
| }} ] <small>(])</small> 16:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:36, 25 March 2015
Answer to Question
You ask, at the Arbitration Enforcement page, "Which policy am I being accused of violating that would warrant arbitration?" You probably already know that there has already been arbitration in WP:ARBGG. The policies include the policy against editing against consensus and the policy against tendentious editing. (I have not researched in detail exactly how much background you have been notified of, because you follow the permitted but discouraged approach of blanking your user talk page.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry
I've discovered that you used another account to evade your block on 18 March 2015. I have noted this at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Galestar and am pinging EdJohnston, who blocked you on that date, so that he is aware if issues crop up again. I don't think that it's necessary to block you on this occasion, but you should know that we do check these things and doing this again will almost certainly result in a ban from the project. Sockpuppetry - using multiple accounts to evade scrutiny - is very much frowned on! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (Message me) 23:10, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: I was blocked on 00:41, March 18, 2015 and that edit was performed 21:36, March 17, 2015 - before the ban. I don't believe I was in violation of my ban, unless I am mistaken about something. Galestar (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Please review WP:ILLEGIT and WP:VALIDALT. Block evasion is not the only illegitimate use of multiple accounts. — Strongjam (talk) 00:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. I read them after the accusations of block evasion were leveled. I now realize I was in violation - but I was still innocent of the charges that were (repeatedly) brought against me. Galestar (talk) 00:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
AE and 1RR
FYI, the 1RR on the gamergate article is there to prevent disputes from getting out of hand, as they were prior to the discretionary sanctions. It's not meant to be an impediment to normal editing, just to prevent endless edit-warring. If somebody violates it unknowingly or in good faith, it's preferable to try to resolve the issue informally before requesting enforcement. Big sticks like enforcement should generally be a last resort, unless there's an ongoing pattern of disruptive editing or there are BLP concerns or other very good reasons to escalate matters. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Topic ban
The following sanction now applies to you:
Standard GG topic ban for 12 months. "Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed."
You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in response to this arbitration enforcement request.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.
You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Gamaliel (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)