Singdavion

Welcome!

Hello, Singdavion, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! Woodroar (talk) 16:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, I haven't seen you before though I notice you and I have been in roughly the same topic area since at least last month.

Normally if I reverted an edit such as the one you just made to Draft:Gamergate controversy, I'd explain it only on the talk page (Talk:Gamergate controversy in this case). As that can appear cold and even a little hostile (as can, let's face it, the original revert), I am going to explain it personally to you here.

There are really two reasons for my edit, though I only mentioned one in my necessarily brief edit summary.

Firstly, as far as I'm aware, Knowyourmeme.com doesn't qualify as a reliable source for our purposes. To be sure, it's an award winning and popular website, like Wikipedia. But also like Wikipedia, it can't be assumed to have the reputation for editorial fact checking we expect of a reliable source (as far as I know).

Second, no matter how reliable a source is, single sources will inevitably have their own bias. We aim to counteract this factor by balancing the statements of multiple reliable sources. We would not recommend one single source as authoritative, as your edit seems to propose.

My reverting your edit should not be seen as the end of the matter. It's certainly conceivable that I'm wrong and that Know your meme is a reliable source, and then at the very least we could use it to help improve our article.

Please feel free to reply here or on the talk page of the article. See you around! --TS 16:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

-- It's not a problem. I understand that the change wasn't going to stay but I suppose I just wanted to bring up the idea of putting something up as a warning. I'll put something on the talk page and I'll see where it goes. Singdavion (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for breaching your GG topic ban. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

To add to that, I've further felt it necessary to extend it to indefinite given your socking with True Kindness (talk · contribs), your not here to contribute to building an encyclopedia, and your probably someone else's sock. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Fut.Perf.: Hi, I'm appealing this ban. It prohibits me from posting on TOPICS related to gamergate. ArbCom is a voting case and it is not inherently related to Gamergate. I ask that you respectfully lift this ban. Thank you Singdavion (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Huh? You were banned "from all pages, including talk pages, on GamerGate and all matters related to it". You think the Arbcom case about Gamergate is not a matter related to Gamergate? That is, uhm, a particularly interesting piece of wiki-lawyering. But given your additional sock block, this is moot anyway. Good bye. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Fut.Perf.: As stated below, True Kindness is a friend of mine. Furthermore, I see all votes under "Proposed Principles" to have no direct relevance to Gamergate. Please reconsider. Singdavion (talk) 09:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: Please be aware that quite a few people are using the same internet connection as my self and that TrueKindness is a friend of mine, not myself.Singdavion (talk) 09:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Fut.Perf.: Regards banning Singdavion for posting in the GamerGate arbitration: Unless you're a member of ArbCom (and I don't think you are), you may have overstepped your authority. Arbitration policy states "The Committee retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes..." In short, it is the Arbitration Committee alone who has jurisdiction over what is posted in arbitration cases. Even if this were not the case, you still overstepped. Arbitration policy says "Statements may be added to case pages by any interested editor." Full stop.

@DeltaQuad: Possibly you have some evidence? At a minimum, I'd like to see some "diffs of edits that suggest the accounts are connected," as required by WP:SPI. While I note that you're a CheckUser, I also note that the blocks on Singdavion and True Kindness are *not* listed as CheckUser blocks. Did you run a CheckUser, and just forget to properly label the block? Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

No. [1]. "Retains jurisdiction" does not mean "has sole authority to act upon" (otherwise how could non-arbitrators do arbitration enforcement, since the enforcement processes are also under that "jurisdiction"?) Also, "by any interested editor" of course doesn't override existing bans or blocks. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Per Future Perfect at Sunrise, re a non-party to the case, topic banned from this area and editing in breach of that topic ban. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Fut.Perf.: The thing about WP is that you can type in a word like jurisdiction, and get a very well developed definition of the term. Which is to say "retains jurisdiction" means what it says. Non-arbitrators can do arbitration enforcement as delegated by ArbCom, and subject to WP policies and procedures. And, as for "any interested editor" - it too means just what it says, and is a matter of WP Policy. Within its jurisdiction, ArbCom authority overrides community authority; It is nonsensical to think that an administrator could come into an arbitration, and supercede ArbCom's authority with community sanctions. But... we probably need to go to ArbCom, and get a clarification from them on these issues. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Fearofreprisal: This was clarified during the workshop, by clerk Callanecc, other then the exceptions in WP:BANEX "if TBANed editors want to make other comments on arbitration pages they need to ask for permission from the Committee to do so". For most of the TBANed editors on that case exceptions where made for the arbcom proceedings by the sanctioning admin. — Strongjam (talk) 20:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly so. For avoidance of doubt, had the topic ban been highlighted prior to the block I would have at least removed the comment, and would have contemplated imposing the block myself. Topic banned editors who are not parties to the case and have not sought an exemption from the ban in order to take part, are not permitted to contribute in breach of their ban. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Fearofreprisal: I just want you to know I have seen this. But getting caught up in Arb work tonight and it being 5am, I need to be able to read my screen fully to reply. I'll do so tomorrow. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 09:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

@Fearofreprisal: Better late than never, SPI as requested. The block is properly labeled. When CheckUsers use evidence and block, they are not required to use the {{checkuserblock-account}} template, as it also restricts admins from unblocking without consulting other checkusers. I didn't feel it was necessary here. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:46, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@DeltaQuad: I was concerned with fairness -- that the block was justified and proper. Thanks for following up with me. Fearofreprisal (talk) 12:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Promotional links on your user page

Hi again.

I noticed that your user page contains a couple of lists of links to external pages such as YouTube channels and Reddit forums. Our guideline on user pages forbids "Promotional and advocacy material and links". Also in the case of some of your links (by no means all) the offensive nature of the material linked, especially pages promoting harassment of Wikipedia editors and others, may also be intrinsically unsuited to Wikipedia user space under this guideline. For clarification see Wikipedia:User pages.

While guidelines are written to allow exceptions, I think some of this material definitely should be on your personal website (if anywhere) rather than your Wikipedia user page.

Since you're blocked from editing, at least for now, I've taken the liberty of collapsing the part of your user page containing the links in question. If and when you're unblocked, please bring your user page into conformance with our policies and guidelines. --TS 12:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)