Skyrock84

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.

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 17:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Request

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#4chan Zoe Quinn Allegations and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Greedo8 19:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

Obvious GamerGate-related sleeper sock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:47, 23 January 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).

Skyrock84 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My edit history proves that I have been active long before GG ever happened, and that my interests encompass multiple topics including artists (Cassandra Ford) and various municipilaties, all edited in good faith. Moreover, I am not a sockpuppet - this is my sole account, and therefore my main account. I request therefore to be unblocked. Skyrock84 (talk) 19:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm declining your request to be unblocked as I find Floquenbeam's rationale to be persuasive. However, I think an unblock with an indefinite Gamergate topic ban could be possible. PhilKnight (talk) 20:24, 23 January 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.

"Sockpuppet" may have been inaccurate; "Sockpuppet or meatpuppet" is probably better. For the reviewing admin: I explained a bit more about the block rationale here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Addendum after being linked to Floquenbeam's extended reasoning: I am neither a meatpuppet drummed up from elsewhere. I came here to read the 4chan article due to the recent news of former owner's Moots withdrawal, noticed the Gamergate section and noticed that there was content not accurately reflecting a source. I first made a compromise edit to get rid of the adjective (which was already contested before I entered the article), and as that was reverted settled to reach consensus on the talk page presenting my POV civilly. I didn't kick off the arbitration case, but was dragged into it (and have objected myself to it being overblown for a freshly opened content dispute). I have consistently edited in good faith and have tried my best to keep proceeds from escalating by choosing non-inflammatory means like moving the unproductive edit war to the talk page, staying civil in each discussion. I would strongly appreciate any pointers about how I could have conducted myself any better.

Is it in any way possible to append this to my unblock request, als Floqenbeam's pointer to the extended rationalisation and PhilKnight's reply have overlapped with me typing up this addendum? --Skyrock84 (talk) 20:34, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, Floquenbeam, I have noticed your question about where GG bans go that was unfortunately unanswered before the case was cycled. The proper place is Wikipedia:General sanctions/Gamergate. --Skyrock84 (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Skyrock84 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Here comes my consolidated unblock request that takes Floq's extended reasoning into account (which wasn't linked at the time of my original appeal, so please excuse the repeat):

First, let me point out that I actually have been editing Wikipedia since 2005. The contribution history of my German account is found here, and an confirmation of this being my account will be found under de:Benutzer_Diskussion:Skyrock84#Confirmation one minute into the future.
It should be noted that this makes the account even older than that of the admin adminstering the block, who has only begun to edit in 2008.

My contribution history across the language versions of wikipedia has been diverse, covering table-top, German towns and miscellanous other things.

As already stated, I am neither a sockpuppet nor a meatpuppet. This is my sole account, and I have come on my own volition.

About the 4chan incident:
I came here to read the 4chan article due to the recent news of former owner's Moots withdrawal, noticed the Gamergate section and noticed that there was content not accurately reflecting a source. I first made a compromise edit to get rid of the adjective (which was already contested before I entered the article), and as that was reverted settled to reach consensus on the talk page presenting my POV in a civil way. I didn't kick off the arbitration case, but was dragged into it (and have objected myself to it being overblown for a freshly opened content dispute). I have consistently edited in good faith and have tried my best to keep proceeds from escalating by choosing non-inflammatory means like moving the unproductive edit war to the talk page, staying civil in each discussion.

Now, let us move into policy, let us not? *The policy definition of meatpuppetry is at its core "new user who engages in the same behavior as another user in the same context, and who appears to be editing Wikipedia solely for that purpose, may be subject to the remedies applied to the user whose behavior they are joining". There is no particular user who matches my editing behaviour on the 4chan article whom I could serve as a meatpuppet. Akesgeroth has tried to change the adjective to "unsubstantiated", NorthBySouth has tried to change it to "false", while I have proposed a third way of entirely dropping the adjective. Only afterwards did Greedo8 join my argument on the talk page. *The guideline on sleeper accounts prescribes no remedies against sleeper accounts based solely on their inactivity. *With that, the two stated blocking reasons are ruled out. Let us move into the unstated, but possibly applying General sanctions for Gamergate. They empower adminstrators as follows:
"Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic space of Gamergate controversy broadly construed, if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. This may include, but is not limited to, page banning, topic banning, semi protection, Pending Changes enabling, or blocking any editor with an interest other than that of the Wikipedia community and without regard for compliance with content rules."
Floq has failed to warn me prior to the ban (despite that being a clearly laid out requirement in the general sanction). I have been denied my right to be noticed of any misbehaviour on my part and stop it before I was blocked.
Neither does his reasoning prove anything about me failing to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, to any expected standards of behavior, or to any normal editorial process, while I have layed out above how I have tried to edit as civil and non-escalating as possible. Neither does it show how I have shown an interest other than that of the Wikipedia community, or how I am without regard for compliance with content rules. - I also doubt that Floq was aware of this set of rules, as he has openly demonstrated ignorance on where to file Gamergate-related bans with the statement: "I have no clue if/where GG sock blocks are supposed to be recorded". The page to store these blocks is the same as the page that states the rules that empower admins to block for GG-related edits. Skyrock84 (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Accept reason:

As explained below in section called "Topic Ban". Floquenbeam (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The longer contribution history on de.wp is something I hadn't noticed. But it doesn't really change the characteristics of this account's behavior:

• a long-dormant account (whether the 2 years dormant I'd assumed, or the 10 years dormant on de.wp (last edit 2005), doesn't really matter)
• a quick sucession of edits to get autoconfirmed
• diving right into a conflict on a semi-protected page
• on a subject that has attracted a tremendous number of other "sleeper" single-purpose accounts recently (who, it is fairly clear, have organized off-wiki)
• claiming to have innocently "noticed" the GamerGate section
• claiming to be compromising between "true" and "false", when really the other editors were arguing about "unsubstantiated" and "false", so removing any adjective is even more POV than either one
• making insinuations about a person who has been the target of a lot of such insinuations

still matches behavior that is disruptive enough that I think preventing Skyrock84 from editing GamerGate-related topics is a good idea. Whether this is achieved with a block, or PhilKnight's suggestion of a topic ban, does not matter to me, and if a reviewing admin wants to convert this to a topic ban they don't need to discuss it with me first. To be clear, I think the block is the better option, due to the apparent pretending going on, but if another admin doesn't think Skyrock8 is pretending, I won't fault them for it.

I don't believe this user's claim that they were unaware of the sanctions before diving into the conflict. If the reviewing admin does believe that this is a remote possibility, I'll note that Skyrock84 were notified of the general sanctions at 17:48 UTC; but made several edits to the article talk page, making insinuations about Zoe Quinn, after that time (starting at 18:19 UTC). So, at the very least, even if a reviewing admin does not believe Skyrock84 knew about the sanctions at the time they edited the article, a topic ban could easily be justified for bahavior post-warning. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You still don't show how I fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process, after I have shown how I went out of my way to keep things from inflaming. Also, an indefinite block is not covered by general sanctions, as blocks empowered by that set of rules are limited to up to one year in length. Even with the talk page notice in place by an non-admin, at the very least I should be counselled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines. Just editing a controversial article and being dragged into drama shouldn't be reason enough to permablock a sleeper like myself. --Skyrock84 (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Topic Ban

Upon further consideration (since no one has handled the unblock request yet, and per my comment here), I'm unblocking this account, and replacing the block with a 1-year topic ban from anything related to GamerGate. Details of the scope of this topic ban are here. This topic ban can be appealed as outlined here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Skyrock84. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Skyrock84~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

02:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)