Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)
Here are a few links you might find helpful:
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! -- Ac t o w n e 02:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
[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)
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)
This is not technically true.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
For bravely entering in a heated debate and not giving into popular opinion.
DSA510
Pls No H8
06:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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?
Silver
seren
C
03:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)
Here are a few links you might find helpful:
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! -- Ac t o w n e 02:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
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)
[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)
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)
This is not technically true.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
For bravely entering in a heated debate and not giving into popular opinion.
DSA510
Pls No H8
06:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
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)
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)
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?
Silver
seren
C
03:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
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)