AugustRemembrancer

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

• Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
• Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
• Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
• No edit warring or sock puppetry.
• If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
• Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
• Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions on Gamergate and gender controversy articles

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding 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, 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.

Please also note that Gamergate controversy is under a 1 revert per 24 hours rule. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

OK. I think I understand. AugustRemembrancer (talk) 06:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Please identify all previous accounts and IP addresses you have edited Wikipedia with, preferably before you run afoul of WP:DUCK. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I am not a sockpuppet account. I do not have any other wikipedia accounts. I do not know who I am supposed to be a sockpuppet for, or on what basis this conclusion has even been reached. There has been no explanation of any kind. Could User:The ed17 please explain their reasoning here? AugustRemembrancer (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I agree with the blocking admin's characterisation of your editing pattern, and in this context, I'm declining your request to be unblocked. PhilKnight (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you the reviewing administrator? Could you extend the courtesy of explaining what the blocking admins characterization actually is? Or your own understanding of it? And why it necessitates a response of this magnitude? AugustRemembrancer (talk) 16:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Of course. You've gamed the system by editing until you obtained the autoconfirmed flag, then immediately jumped into the controversial Gamergate topic, showing an inordinate amount of Wikipedia knowledge from your first edit. Obvious sock is obvious, and I don't have much tolerance for someone who is trying to waste our time. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not here to waste time. I'm here to improve articles. And I am not a sock puppet. I do not have "inordinate knowledge" of whatever Wikipedian internal processes you are applying here. I have signed up to this site, in good faith, to make good faith improvements to articles. I have made a point to engage in discussions so as to avoid any controversy or edit warring. These accusations that I am a sockpuppet, or trying to waste people's time are untrue.

Simply put, who is it that am I supposed to be a sockpuppet for? AugustRemembrancer (talk) 23:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I will let the reviewing admin judge the above statement. Personally, I think that one look at their contribution history will prove it utterly false. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Who is the reviewing admin? Is there anywhere to go to proceed with this? AugustRemembrancer (talk) 23:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I think a fair resolution, assuming someone wants to unblock this user and they are truly serious about trying to improve the encyclopedia, is for AugustRemembrancer to accept a self-imposed topic ban regarding Gamer Gate, gender issues, and feminism, broadly construed. Maybe tack "video games" on there for good measure. I might actually believe they are here to help and not hinder then.--Jorm (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I endorse Jorm's recommendation. The account was created a couple of weeks ago and doesn't edit at all until today. It then racks up enough for autoconfirm in a few hours, creates a fully formed "gamer identity" user page in a single edit, then commences tendentious Gamergate editing. I don't know about anyone else, but I did not fall off a turnip truck. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 23:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Indeed I am a gamer. I came here today to suggest improvements to the GamerGate article. That is all I have done. I have not edited the article. I have suggested improvements on the talk page. Some of these have been implemented by other editors. That is all I intend to do. Suggest improvements, offer opinion and consultancy. I have mediawiki experience, and knowledge of this topic.

I have not engaged in any action to warrant this kind of response from the admins, or such a broadly construed block. I realise I am a new user, I realise the topic is contentious. But I am able to offer constructive input on the article talk page. I would like to continue to do so, and let my actions in that capacity be the basis for any judgments made on me.

If the admins wish to independently impose a topic ban on me for whatever reason, let that procedure be applied in its own right. But asking me to submit to such a ban as a requirement for lifting a false allegation of sockpuppetry is unreasonable. I am not a sockpuppet, I do not have any other account on this site.

I would ask the admins to consider that, while the entire topic of Gamergate is contentious, it is now eight months old and at some point the need for heavy handed reactions ebbs. There are many editors such as myself who can offer (needed) constructive input in a collegial way, for the benefit of the article, and the site as a whole. This is not something that should be seen as tendentious, or requiring of a reflexive bans. AugustRemembrancer (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Why should the admins here take a view that is completely contrary to what the arbs themselves just a few days ago decided? " I'm absolutely not inclined to narrow the scope of any restrictions here....If the disruption is still that ongoing, that is if anything an argument for more severity in the sanctions, not less." " I don't personally see any trouble with robust administrative actions against new accounts whose only activity is to edit provocatively or disruptively in sensitive areas." etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Jorm and Cullen328 here a bit; AR can very well edit articles on memes (since he claims that Wikipedia has nothing related to the,), but at the same time what if he makes sexist edits outside the banned topics where one is proposed? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we could just deal with that if and when it happened.--Jorm (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems fair enough. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

• Did this editor do something specific to earn a block? Or is this block solely based on sock puppetry, and if so in which way is this not a valid alt? From my understanding of policy, editing a highly controversial area is one of the valid reasons for using an alt. WP:VALIDALT TyTyMang (talk) 05:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

• The block is also based on disruptive, tendentious editing in a highly controversial topic area subject to ArbCom sanctions. But you already knew that, didn't you, TyTyMang? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we have different opinions of "disruptive" and "tendentious". All I saw from him was bringing up issues that seemed at least fairly constructive. In fact this edit resulted in a positive contribution to the article. This editor hasn't edited the Gamergate article at all. Just the talk page.

We most certainly do have different views of what is disruptive and tendentious, TyTyMang. If you think that disruption is limited to article space, then you are sorely wrong. I am an experienced generalist editor who has worked in hundreds of topic areas over the six years I have been editing, and think I can recognize disruption when I see it. But, of course, I could be wrong, and if so, I trust that other experienced editors will tell me so. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@Rsrikanth05: Why would you suggest that this editor would make "sexist" edits. Has this editor made similar edits that I have just over looked in his very short contribution list? If not then the comment is extremely inappropriate and you should retract and apologize. TyTyMang (talk) 05:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@TyTyMang: I would suggest branching out from the Gamergate topic before you're blocked for being a SPA/SOAP. (keeping in mind the emotional limitations of textual conversation—that's advice, not a threat) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware being an SPA was a blockable offense. But then again, I was also not aware that allegedly having an alt was blockable either.

In any case, I don't understand why you decided to ignore my question and instead make a statement that you then had to disclaim as "not a threat". TyTyMang (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Your definition of an alt is so wide that it makes me wonder why we have a sockpuppet policy. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Your own definition of a sockpuppet is so wide I also wonder what the policy is even for. For the record, the WP:DUCK pages reads like a joke policy, so it's hard to know how seriously I am supposed to be taking all of this. What I will seriously question is the ability of anyone to seriously edit the Gamergate article in anything approaching a neutral fashion. It is currently under the control of politicized zealots with no sense of perspective, and as far as I can tell, poor knowledge of both gaming and the controversy as a whole. I'd like to help with that but even the offer of advise is met with an unprovoked and unjustified accusation of sockpuppetry.

I don't believe that the editors or admins ever intended allowing the page to be anything other than it currently is, which is a proxy battleground in an American culture war. It is sad that this has to occur in a controversy about the internet in general, and video games in particular, since both are international institutions, but I doubt even the existence of a world beyond US political partisanship will exist on that page by the end. AugustRemembrancer (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

You are, of course, free to ask for a second block review if you question my decision. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:56, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

How is the reviewing admin selected in this process? AugustRemembrancer (talk) 05:13, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It's listed in a category, and an administrator visiting that category will review it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

A user with 87 edits asking me to apologise to a blocked user with 31 edits. Sure. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

How nice to know that there is a pecking order in Wikipedia. How many edits a user should have before he or she deserves your apology, your highness? Even if you accused him or her of being sexist in the future with no evidence... But I'm an IP, so I have no say in it, right? 195.174.183.35 (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

This was my first and original account. No other account has ever been presented as supposedly being my own. No evidence was ever presented by any editor or admin in this case.

Unable to edit, I created a [second account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AllMyEasterEggs] to discuss this same groups continued escalation of increasingly draconian measures. This account was then also blocked for sockpuppetry putting myself in the Kafka-esque position of needing to return here to request an unblock for what is now being argued is a permentant personal block on myself as a result of a sockpuppet declaration on my original account.

I add that these blocks are not motivated by any contentious editing on my part but by controlling editors who are simply blocking opposing views. This behaviour is by now setting site wide precendents wholly against the principles and ethos of what this encyclopedia is supposed to be. I'd ask the reviewing administrator to consider the context of these blocks their the potential for abuse of the rules involved. AugustRemembrancer (talk) 22:44, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I have no reasons whatosever to believe that this is your first account. Max Semenik (talk) 06:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

The previous admin is being entirely disingenuous. As I have explained

• No evidence have ever been presented that this is not my first account.
• Yet the burden of proof is being placed on me to prove a negative.
• In addition this block is being argued as permanent personal ban on myself due to the duration of the block.
• Moreover, this block was motivated simply in an effort to exclude my input from a controlled page.

Refuting this is easy. If this is not my "real account", then show which one is.

This block constitutes a gross abuse of the rule being applied. The burden of proof in applying a permanent personal ban to a first time editor lies with the accuser. It is not enough to make a false and unsubstantiated claim of sockpuppetry or anything else and pretend that this is true. It is as plain as day that the site rules are being abused here.

I would appreciate if the next administrator to review this would at least take the time to explain how I am supposed to exit this absurdly Kafkaesque position? AugustRemembrancer (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Which accounts? Which accounts is --jpgordon referring to? Provide the evidence.

Decline reason:

We're not in a court of law. Talk page access revoked. Max Semenik (talk) 05:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I don't think you can exit your position, frankly.
The most common tactic of Gamergate supports on this site is to continually request (or, in your case, demand) that editors and administrators continually do more and more work to support their demands. You know, sea-lioning.
Since you've shown no willingness to follow process or operate in good faith already (such as making block-circumventing accounts), I doubt anyone is going to "right the gross injustices" being done to you.
The burden of proof is on your shoulders now.--Jorm (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Yet another animal metaphor is being brought in to justify these abuses of procedure. At least the editor above is brutally honest in admitting that they believe the burden of proof should be on the accused. Needless to say I disagree, and so does common sense and fair process. No-one in a position of responsibility should make such statements on burdens of proof.

My points stand. The original accusation of sockpuppetry is false, utterly without supporting evidence, and is being enforced as a punitive permanent personal ban on myself for simply presenting opposing viewpoints in discussion. This is contrary to the stated principles of this site and damaging to the integrity of all involved.

The above editors statements do clarify the prejudices behind these unjustifiable actions. Anyone whose opinions on certain topics disagree with the controlling editors' consensus is to be labeled a "Gamergate", against whom no abuse of procedure or process is too egregious, and no logical contradiction too unsustainable. This is now leading to site setting precedents like the 500/30 rules going "unchallenged" because opposing viewpoints are being blocked and banned on controlling editors' say so. The rule abuses are getting worse, and it's coming from admins.

It is simply not good enough to wave around "Gamergate etc" as some vague, undefined bogeyman to justify these escalatingly extreme measures. Editors who should know better are losing all sense of proportion and good judgment. AugustRemembrancer (talk) 16:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

And again, you're making demands that people do extra work for you. --jpgordon is an administrator with CheckUser authority, which means that they have the ability to see your sockpuppets. This information is not typically published as it falls into issues of doxxing and privacy policy violations. --Jorm (talk) 03:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

UTRS

AugustRemembrancer, now that your talk page access has been taken away, your only recourse is through the UTRS (Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System) and to appeal to the arbitration committee.
Be warned, if your argument continues to be that the admins are unfair and biased, that Wikipedia is corrupt and that there is a concerted effort to silence people with particular points of view, your account will never be unblocked. That argument only demonstrates that if you were to be unblocked, you would be a disruptive editor. Your argument has to involve taking responsibility for the conduct that resulted in the block and must indicate that your future work would be a positive and productive contribution to the project.
It's not against the rules to criticize Wikipedia but those editors who do this and are not seen as disruptive are editors with tens of thousands of edits and years of experience editing, not new accounts like yours. There is very little tolerance for newly created accounts that set about trying to right wrongs and talk about the "abusive admins." There is no doubt lots of room for improvement on Wikipedia but we are all volunteers and most editors are trying to do the best they can to improve the content of the project.
It would have been in your best interests if you had spent time learning about policies, guidelines and culture that exist on Wikipedia and edited regular articles instead of plunging into one of the most divisive talk pages where your conduct and your account would be under intense scrutiny. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:00, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Seeing as how this message was left on my talk page, I'll exercise my right of reply here.

I'm replying because your comment makes several incorrect assumption about my actions and motives. More importantly your comment glaringly avoids acknowledging continued admin failings, and as such is only adding to the true source of the problems I and other users are facing here.

* Firstly, my argument was not that Wikipedia was corrupt, it was that this is my first account. The blocking processes here are being abused, but this is a separate issue from the essential point of this block.

* Secondly, I am not a disruptive editor as my contributions prior to this first block will demonstrate. In the brief time I was able to give them, my suggestions helped objectively improve the article. No conduct on my part was responsible for this block.

* Thirdly the only "wrong" I have been trying to right is this block for sockpuppetry. It's become apparent in doing this that blocking procedures can be abused in a Kafkaesque way, and I've said so, but my account was never created for that purpose and the original block is the only reason I can do little else but discuss these problems. In doing so I am not criticizing Wikipedia, or the admins involved, but the actions being taken.

* Fourthly, this is not the encyclopedia that anyone can edit after they have read all the (often contradictory and rivaling a small nation's legal code in scale) rules and policies. This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It is the core principle of this website. While articles on controversial or divisive issues exist, and while it is correct that the conduct of those editing such pages be appropriately policed, it is not correct that extensive background reading in site procedures, or tens of thousands of edits, are required to simply make reasonable, constructive suggestions for articles.

I am making these points because the underlying assumption in your comment is that I am the one at fault in all this. That my actions somehow justify this situation. That I should not have attempted to suggest improvements to the article, and that a permanent personal ban from Wikipedia was an appropriate response. That my efforts to appeal, to ask for evidence, to argue my own case, should only be taken as further proof of "guilt", evidence that I will be somehow be "disruptive". This is the very definition of Kafkaesque. Above all your comment simply does not address the very real wrongs being done, and underpinned, by admins. And that the largest and most important problem which needs to be addressed.

Reflecting on it, I think the root of the difficulty here is the culture among administrators. That admins should be seen as being at fault is, it seems, taboo. My observation is that admins are reluctant, perhaps barred, from reversing one another's decisions without extensive forms and procedures being involved. When a poor decision is made, and especially if an admin abuses their position, some close ranks, but most others walk away, and the problem is left unresolved. If complaints arise, blame must be placed on the ordinary editor, ever down no matter the cost. Still the problem is unresolved. As things get worse, more bad decision are made, more complaints arise, with no way of resolving them, until eventually even the existence of complaints must be viewed as problematic and blocked completely.

It seems to me that admins on Wikipedia are in a spiral of acrimony. In lieu of a culture of criticism and debate, an entire bureaucracy of often contradictory, often misused or abused, rules and procedures has been developed in an effort to avoid facing up to difficulties. Users are held to blame, more procedures and arbitration measures developed, the problem it is hoped will go away. But this invites abuses, and in the face of sustained and egregious abuses, ever more blame must be placed on the userbase, ever more extreme measures employed and precedents set, and ever more brute tempers adopted to enforce them, until the administrators hold the entire site and themselves hostage to endless acrimony of their own design.

This has basically happened during the Gamergate page admin abuses. It has been nine months and the problem has not gone away. The page gets worse and worse under the controlling editors, attracting in more complaints and efforts to fix problems, and these are responded to with increasingly hostility, more rule abuses, more restrictions, reinforcing the controlling editors who proceed to escalate the cycle on the page and beyond. A good, what, 5% of the admin base has become involved in one way or another at this point? Site wide precedents are now being set. I'm far from the only user wronged. The Gamergate article is become a vortex of acrimony for the whole site. And since it concerns one of the largest events in either internet or video game history, this vortex is unlikely to close for some time to come.

As I don't really know enough about Wikipedia's admins beyond what I've seen in this case, I can't really offer any solution for this. All I can do is try to point out what I see as the problem. I leave this comment for consideration, though it may well be swiftly deleted for breaking some rules about socks or ducks or sea-lions. All I can say is that either way its a capstone to an absurdly impossible situation. AugustRemembrancers3rdAccount (talk) 02:28, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Stop socking. If you want to return, take the standard offer. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)