First off, I hope I am not spamming your Talk page or anything like that; I was a bit unsure of where I should leave you this request, but anyways... Secondly, I am User:Carbrera and feel free to check out my page if you would like. Third and lastly, I was wondering if you could look over the following pages that I have created for Gwen Stefani. I noticed that you deleted similar pages many, many years ago and I just wanted to see what you thought of them and if they were up to par on Wikipedia's expectations. The following pages I have created: "Bubble Pop Electric", "Danger Zone (Gwen Stefani song)", "Long Way to Go (Gwen Stefani song)", "My Heart Is Open", "Shine (Gwen Stefani song)", "Spark the Fire", & "Yummy (Gwen Stefani song)". I have also created the page, "Upcoming Gwen Stefani studio album". If you are able to leave any comments or suggestions, they are greatly appreciated and welcome. Thank you for your time and your dedication to Wikipedia. I really appreciate your contributions to this wonderful site! Carbrera (talk) 03:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
1.1)
(i) The community Gamergate general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related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.
(ii) All sanctions in force when this remedy is enacted are endorsed and will become standard discretionary sanctions governed by the standard procedure from the moment of enactment.
(iii) Notifications issued under Gamergate general sanctions become alerts for twelve months from the date of enactment of this remedy, then expire. The log of notifications will remain on the Gamergate general sanction page.
(iv) All existing and past sanctions and restrictions placed under Gamergate general sanctions will be transcribed by the arbitration clerks in the central discretionary sanctions log.
(v) Any requests for enforcement that may be open when this remedy is enacted shall proceed, but any remedy that is enacted should be enacted as a discretionary sanction.
(vi) Administrators who have enforced the Gamergate general sanctions are thanked for their work and asked to continue providing administrative assistance enforcing discretionary sanctions and at Arbitration enforcement.
1.2)
Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to monitor the articles covered by discretionary sanctions in this case to ensure compliance. To assist in this, administrators are reminded that:
(ii) Accounts whose primary purpose is disruption, violating the policy on biographies of living persons, or making personal attacks may be blocked indefinitely;
(iii) There are special provisions in place to deal with editors who violate the BLP policy;
(iv) The default position for BLPs, particularly for individuals whose noteworthiness is limited to a particular event or topic, is the presumption of privacy for personal matters;
(v) Editors who spread or further publicize existing BLP violations may be blocked;
(vi) Administrators may act on clear BLP violations with page protections, blocks, or warnings even if they have edited the article themselves or are otherwise involved;
(vii) Discretionary sanctions permit full and semi-page protections, including use of pending changes where warranted, and – once an editor has become aware of sanctions for the topic – any other appropriate remedy may be issued without further warning.
The Arbitration Committee thanks those administrators who have been helping to enforce the community general sanctions, and thanks, once again, in advance those who help enforce the remedies adopted in this case.
2.1) 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. These restrictions may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.
8.3) Subject to the usual exceptions, The Devil's Advocate(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is prohibited from making any more than one revert on any one page in any 48-hour period. This applies for all pages on the English Wikipedia, except The Devil's Advocate's own user space. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.
8.4) Subject to the usual exceptions, The Devil's Advocate(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is indefinitely prohibited from editing any administrative or conduct noticeboard (including, not not limited to; AN, AN/I, AN/EW, and AE), except for threads regarding situations that he was directly involved in when they were started. This restriction may be appealed to the Committee only after 12 months have elapsed from the closing of this case.
8.5) The Devil's Advocate(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) is strongly warned that should future misconduct occur in any topic area, he may be banned from the English Wikipedia by motion of the Arbitration Committee. Further, the committee strongly suggests that The Devil's Advocate refrains from editing contentious topic areas in the future.
13) The Arbitration Committee endorses the community-imposed topic ban preventing Titanium Dragon (talk·contribs) from editing under BLP enforcement. This ban is converted to an Arbitration Committee-imposed ban. Titanium Dragon is indefinitely restricted per the standard topic ban.
18) The Arbitration Committee urges that knowledgeable and non-conflicted users not previously involved in editing GamerGate-related articles, especially GamerGate-related biographies of living people, should carefully review them for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case.
If you get an unblock request like mine, that includes words like "I am deeply confused", with a similar type of issue? You might mention something like "If you have a peer-to-peer blocker up, you might need to turn it off" or something. I honestly had no idea what the things you told me meant, it just managed to trigger in my brain the thought "Oh, wait. Zenmate. That just got installed, maybe that's doing something to my IP address in some way, I don't know what it actually does, so maybe it does that". It could lead to a minimization of baffled and frustrated people... Tamtrible (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So explain to me why I was blocked? Because I updated an article on good faith and when it was removed (for no reason) I tried to update this article, but the next time with greater accuracy and detail? Are we now punishing people for scholarly research? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.101.160.50 (talk) 12:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Juice0312
A look at the global contribs of Juice0312 reveals that they've uploaded to Commons an image of Snow which they claim to be CC-BY-SA-4.0, however it appears to be an official photo which is probably copyrighted, although I'm not sure.
And one other thing: should the image in the infobox be more neutral than the publicity-orientated photos of Juice0312? —George8211 / T14:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, could you delete Deepesh Krishnan? It clearly meets CSD A7, but the author keeps removing the A7 tag. Since that would remove it from the CSD-tagged category, an admin might not find it. Thanks, Origamiteⓣⓒ01:16, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In upholding a block at User Talk:Dicklyon you wrote: "In essence, there is a difference between closing a discussion and editing an article, which means Dreadstar acted properly in warning you,..."
Can you explain that please? Dicklyon was trying to participate in a discussion, and was being prevented by Dreadstar's inexplicable disruptive behavior (see User Talk:Born2cycle#Draft ANI for the whole story). Dreadstar never gave a reason for archiving and re-archiving those sections. It's pretty clear he did not understand what was even occurring there. What policy basis was there for closing a discussion, requiring those who wanted to continue to start new sections? What is the point of that? Clearly it was against consensus - because consensus among all participants was to continue discussion! Isn't using admin tools to go against consensus still something admins aren't supposed to do, especially when they claim that they are acting with consensus. I think you owe Dicklyon a BIG apology, and in my opinion Dreadstar is a terrible admin. Actually, both of you acted without bothering to understand what was happening. Shameful. --В²C☎23:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Including myself, 4 uninvolved admins gave their opinion of the block, and all 4 endorsed it. In this context, I consider the matter closed. PhilKnight (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Request for undeletion of the article for which you closed AfD
Please consider undeletion of Lawyer jokes, the article which AfD you closed. Currently we have a well-referenced article Lawyer joke. I vaguely remember that the deleted article has solid references to scholar work, and the AfD discussion had more links. I believe its contents (and history) can be merged to the current article (Lawyer joke). -M.Altenmann >t16:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
also there is an article he contributed to which is nommed for deletion under WP:PROD when clearly the guy is a sitting judge and the spam of these users (Noah, Cogden, and FixingMisleadingInformation (confirmed a sock) on multiple articles and talk pages is becoming incessant. 70.208.206.115 (talk) 22:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As you may have seen, you declined this editor's unblock request at the same time I was granting it. (We didn't get an edit conflict because I put my edit in a new section.) I don't think our rationales directly conflict, because you were looking for an assurance from the editor that he wouldn't edit logged-out any more, and I believe he has already given that assurance. So I don't think there's a big issue here, but I did want to make you aware of the situation if you weren't already. Best regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it was negative... but justifiably so... as it is the TRUTH.... whether you wish to hide the truth is of course your call as an admin... but that then throws into judgement ALL wiki posts... as they may be so bland and balanced that no one can form an objective judgement... but again that is your call.... if you had the experience of staying in Gatehouse... in a community that is so divided by the class system that now operates in this money orientated "town" ... also... the original wiki page is equally negative in that it creates an image of .....???????....... my post illustrated the true facts..... the class division where amateur artists are excluded from the "art" venue as they did not complete ANY course at any recognised art school... so therefore no one can display their work unless they belong to this select group in what is a publically funded org..... where the entrance to Garries park is pot holed and muddy... where wheelchair or disabled are basically excluded from this park... where there is the minimum of play equipment for children..... three swings... one slide... one roundabout... some logs... whereas the great & the good feel it is more important to refurb a derelict prop..... in a very difficult for able bodied people ... part of the woods .... at a cost to the PUBLIC of £57,000.... BUT... whats the point.... you would rather that the great & the good carry on regardless... oblivious to how their middle class cultural waspishness is offensive to what was once a vibrant community... Scot2go2 (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the unblock
Really, I love Wikipedia and use it daily and only contribute occasionally so I was surprised to find out that my editing ability had been blocked. I do run an IP blocker as I think everyone should these days and I think that is the reason I was blocked, I will try to make sure it is off in the future if I need to do any editing. But is there a way to make sure that is what happened? I just don't want to be blocked again and/or break any Wikipedia rules. Cheers! Lumpytrout (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vienna Conservatory
I confess that I am concerned about the lack of understanding of the user who doesn't understand "disambiguation", but "edit war" enough to run to ANEW and accuse us. I used a very simple example to explain dab but didn't have the feeling to be understood. Lack of English may play a role, - the last entry on my talk is in German. - Btw, the article he added (how many times) instead of the dab looks pretty not-notable to me, - I asked more than once to provide independent sources. Good luck! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's VERY seldom I link to this, but all things considered, not the least of which is mentioned by RexxS on the user's talk, I have to wonder if there may be a WP:CIR issue here. — Ched : ? 22:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User Klbogart55
Hello. I saw you blocked Klbogart55. Could Klbogart35 be the same person? It looks like they are editing the same articles (Fox Sports related and other journalists) as 55 was. I'm not 100% sure they are the same person, but the names are the same except the number. I did warn 55 and 35 keeps adding unsourced content. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan | Chat?17:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to bother you yet again, but I'm not sure if there is another way (or better way) about dealing with this. And because you are the admin that has blocked his/her accounts, I figured letting you know would be betetr. It looks like Klbogart is back, this time under the username of Klbogart12. Corkythehornetfan | Chat?20:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Phil, thanks for looking into this case. I wanted to bring to your attention that his claim that he obtained this information from a WHOIS seems untruthful:
The WHOIS info that he is outing me with seems to be fabricated. If you visit the actual WHOIS link that he provides, the information that he posted is not there. [1] The only hint of my employer is in the "IP location" field, which does not locate or name my employer correctly. (We are not in Somerville and there are multiple letter typos in the field.) The reason that he knows my employer's name was because he created his account name guessing from the above IP location field to resemble my boss's name and provoked me into telling him to stop harassing my employer. [2]
Aside from the outing incident, there is other evidence of malicious intent from this person:
- While my account was inactive, he launched this SPI with accusations that turned out to be false. [3] He accused me of being a "serial sockpuppeter" even before the CU had come to any conclusion. [4]
- Right after his initial block for outing, he left the account as a sleeper for months and his first activity when he logged back in was to wrongfully report me for COI [5] although the article's talk page clearly proved otherwise. [6][7] Unfortunately I was inactive at the time this happened.
- This person has long intended to divulge my personal information outside the scope of a WHOIS: "If desired, I will provide a short instruction how to find this video on the web and can do so without disclosing information that [Sophie.grothendieck] did not disclose himself already. So here we have this guy's firm/employer and they identified themselves... during a public presentation, ..." - Kristina451, 8 Sep 2014[8]
- Here, he reverts an edit that cites an academic research paper from Columbia Business School [9] and dismisses it as "propaganda" in his edit message just because a company that's similar to my employer had financially supported that research.
Seeing as he is willing to wait 9 months in this long-term quest to harm me personally and has tried repeatedly to manipulate admins into giving him a chance to out me [10][11], it will be really disastrous to let him off the hook again. Sophie.grothendieck (talk) 23:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you get my email?
Basically it said that DeltaQuad and I agree that LouisAragon is not Beh-nam and that there should be a separate SPI for him. He has edited with a sock account this year - Lil helpers. and via IP addresses, so he's still socking and is properly blocked. I hope to get the SPI issue sorted as he's been appealing on the grounds he isn't Beh-nam. He's also blocked at Nl.wiki where I've been in countact with the Admin who blocked him there. Any comments? Dougweller (talk) 11:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i haven't even been on wikipedia in quite awhile and finally logged back into my account to see you had at some point decided to make up some vague inexplicable reason to block my account.. that i wasn't even using? What? What a joke you are. Whatzinaname (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hagrid
I've granted Hagrid (talk·contribs) IPBlock exempt until we can sort out that range block. I know that irks checkusers and cumulatively makes their/your job harder, but it seems like the values-based decision in the short term. I'm happy to analyze any IPs for proxies or proxy-like capabilities, but it's really hard to do that for a large range. :( Kuru(talk)13:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
