User talk:Titanium Dragon/Archive 11

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bow and arrow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dart (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate and Zoe Quinn related

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Zoe Quinn again. Thank you. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Zoe Quinn _ notability

I do not believe that Zoe Quinn crosses the threshold of notability for inclusion in Wikipedia, especially as the majority of coverage in reliable press on her is single-incident oriented. What are your thoughts? Also, although I am uninvolved except for having just learned of her yesterday and reviewed the page and spotted the very aggressive (and abusive) deleting of talk page content, I tried to post something to the TP yesterday on your behalf, suggesting that another editor was not conducting himself appropriately in their response to one of your comments. Idk if you saw it, or if it even still exists as a question I posted yesterday was also deleted. I saw there was a proposed deletion of the page earlier this year but it looked like there was poor participation and no really critical discussion, just a lot of white-knight-like defending of the subject. Cheers. Azx2 19:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Filing an RFC/U

You do realize that your editorial behavior - a singleminded obsession with depicting Zoe Quinn negatively through the use of fringe sources, promotion of scurrilous rumormongering and repeated insertion of material previously rev-deleted by administrators - will become part of that discussion, right? Once again, I suggest you read WP:BOOMERANG before embarking on this project of yours. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I am, in fact, completely unconcerned. You have behaved consistently aggressive towards myself and others, and as was noted in the ANI, the revdels were, in fact, done in error - stuff which is reliably sourced does not need to be revdeled, and after the ANI - something which YOU participated in, no less - we discussed the material in question in on the talk page without further revdels because it was determined to be contrary to the policy on such. The material itself in question is notable and vital to understanding what happened. Your continued insistence in impugning the motivations of anyone who disagrees with you is contrary to both WP:CIVIL and WP:FAITH. Your deletion of said reliably sourced material, repeatedly, in order to prevent discussion on the matter is contrary to Wikipedia policy - Wikipedia is not censored, Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, and Wikipedia relies on reliable sources. Please review the relevant policies and discussion, and cease and desist in such actions. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally, given that this has been covered in Al-Jezeera, mentioned by TIME Magazine, gotten several articles in The Guardian (one of which, biased in favor of Zoe Quinn, ended up with the writer of the article resigning due to backlash and her ties, financial and otherwise, to the person she was defending), and appeared in hundreds of other RSs at this point, the idea that these are "fringe sources" and is "scurrilous rumormongering" is yet another example of your failure to assume good faith and outright attacks on other users. Indeed, a big part of the problem, which you have not been sensitive to, is the fact that people are accusing these folks - the folks you are citing - of being corrupt, and of selective censorship and straw man arguments which you appear to be repeating, such as the assertion that all people who are talking about this are engaging in slut shaming rather than criticizing conflicts of interest and victim playing and identity politics. This is precisely why it blew up to the extent that it did; people who weren't even really all that involved got upset over being accused of bigotry just because they were gamers, and it ended up escalating to the point where random places like Business Insider were reporting on the backlash. The fact that you consider such sources as The Mary Sue and Slate as good examples of neutral sources indicates that you are not very well acquainted with the WP:NPOV policy either, as both are sources which suffer from extreme bias, and thus are very tricky to use as RSs. I would recommend, again, reviewing these policies; you have a long history of being warned about edit warring and POV-pushing, and you do not seem to have taken the advice of other folks to heart on this issue. I am here to report the information which is relevant to understanding what is going on. You should be here for the same reason. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

For your attempts to bring objectivity and neutral point of view to GamerGate article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, its so much fun! I even got doxxed over it! Good thing who I am isn't a secret anyway. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Likewise. I don't nearly have the expertise (or courage, for that matter) to go into that mess. Fephisto (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Doxxing

I've removed your complaint from Talk:GamerGate because it identifies individuals by name. I will assist you in bringing any complaint about them to ArbCom, but please do not use the talk page for allegations involving offsite behavior, especially ones that identify specific persons. Gamaliel (talk) 21:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, and thank you. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate your willingness to redact the names. I did not initially realize that these individuals had posted their own names on a Wikipediocracy blog post, so deleting the revision was unnecessary on my part, but still we should err on the side of caution and not mention them unless absolutely necessary, though I know it is frustrating to extend them the same courtesy they did not extend to you. You acted appropriately in bringing this to ANI and we should leave it there instead of the talk page of the article. Gamaliel (talk) 21:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Good luck re the Wikipediocracy issue and stay strong. Have you taken any formal steps against the involved persons already?MicBenSte (talk) 12:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

For future reference: The ANI from this incident can be found here. In the end, the folks involved in the doxxing (the few who hadn't previously been banned) were banned, someone created several socks to jump in (resulting in bans for them), and a whole bunch of other arguments and discussion resulted in exactly nothing else happening. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:13, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion?

May I respectfully suggest you step away from the Zoe Quinn and GamerGate articles and related discussions? I haven't evaluated the content of your contributions on those subjects in any great detail, but I think the sheer volume of them suggest that your interest in the subject is no longer healthy, for you or for the encyclopaedia. It's easy to feel the need to rebut every comment or argue every point to the bitter end when you have strong feelings on a subject, but it's equally easy to lose perspective and at that point you don't do yourself or your argument any good. I think it would be best for all concerned if you were to find something else to edit for a while. That said, this is just a suggestion from a concerned outsider; it's not a formal administrative action and carries no 'official' weight, so I can't force you to follow my suggestion. Regards, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: To be honest, the main reason I'm involved with it is because I am concerned about NPOV issues; when I first went to the article I was expecting it to be overrun by gamer folks who were very angry about Zoe Quinn. Instead it was overrun by angry people who felt that the whole thing was secretly a misogynistic conspiracy. I do appreciate your concern, and have been trying to avoid spending too much time here. I use Wikipedia as a reference quite frequently (people make jokes about me using Wikilinks everywhere else on the internet... well, kid on the square anyway) so I like to improve it every now and again to "give back". Really, it seems to be getting more eyes on it now, and Masem seems to be doing a very good job at being a voice of reason there, so I'm less worried about it now than I was before, too. To be honest, it is a little ridiculous that a stupid fight on the internet (or rather, what started as a stupid fight on the internet) has ballooned into something being covered by the mainstream press. But such is the power of social media, I guess. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Just learned something

If the allegations about IFred are proven true, it will be explosive.Or at least should be.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@MyMoloboaccount: I have no idea what IFred is. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate

In the talk page section on that article called "Phil Fish and Zoe Quinn's action description" you posted very serious allegations regarding those two living individuals. You claim that there are reliable sources substantiating those allegations but do not list or link to those sources. Please do not make any further claims of this nature on that or any other page without direct reference to specific reliable sources substantiating those claims. For a new editor or an editor new to these articles, this might be understandable, but at this point, you have been editing these articles and Wikipedia long enough to know how irresponsible it is to make such unsubstantiated claims. Gamaliel (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gamaliel:: As a longtime editor of Wikipedia you should be aware that this is done all the time on BLP talk pages when discussing current events without issue. For example, see this from the Mark Sanford archive, or the talk page on the Shooting of Michael Brown. And it should be remembered that anything about living persons, positive, negative, or neutral, falls under the BLP policy - according to your interpretation, people would have to cite every single line about anything factual on the talk page. This is simply not done. I don't think there's a single BLP page which does that. People discuss this sort of thing all the time when it appears in the press, and there are a number of links on the talk page talking about stuff like that, so this is actually better sourced than a lot of that stuff. Discussing this stuff in the way you are complaining about is, well, unreasonable; it simply is not going to happen. Moreover, you have not hit people who have been attacking other folks; i.e. Tarc who not only accuses gamers involved of being misogynistic without citation (which would itself be a violation of WP:BLP according to your interpretation of such, seeing as "gamers" are living people) but other users of being misogynists.

If someone tries to add something like that to an article, that's a problem. If someone talking about stuff on a talk page, yeah, if they're just attacking people, that's problematic, but when we're discussing background and suchlike... moreover, this issue had been discussed elsewhere on that very talk page.

Phil fish explodes in rage

This article notes Phil Fish calling Zoe Quinn's attackers rapists

Here is an interview with the Fine Young Capitalists about their history with Zoe Quinn

This talks about the hacking of The Fine Young Capitalists

You are simply incorrect in your understanding of BLP, or, alternatively, literally every single page on Wikipedia with any mention of living persons is in violation of our BLP policy. Absolutely no BLP talk page adheres to putting a wikilink into every single factual line about any living person, and you aren't even enforcing it on that page that you called me out on. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

It is simply incorrect that it is appropriate to use talk pages to make unsubstantiated allegations against living individuals. If you feel that it is substantiated by a link elsewhere on the page, then it is a simple matter for you to include that link in your own posts. If this is too onerous a requirement to comply with, then please do not edit articles about sensitive issues regarding living individuals. Gamaliel (talk) 00:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, I have reviewed the links you have posted above, and at best, only one of the four links even remotely substantiates the broad claims you made in your post, and that link is an unsubstantiated interview with someone alleging that this was done. Again, if you are unwilling to take more care with sources involving living individuals, please do not edit these articles. Gamaliel (talk) 00:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: Cinemablend noted the interview as well, and I don't know what you mean by "unsubstantiated interview" - many of the articles are little more than interviews with Zoe Quinn. What would constitute "substantiation"? Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a discussion about the reliable sources used in the article, so whatever other sources may be interviews are irrelevant. This is about what you posted on a talk page. You stated a number of claims as fact without reference to any sources, and without noting that they were claims made by involved parties in an interview and that those claims were not reported as fact by a reputable news source. Gamaliel (talk) 05:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate Topic Ban

The following material was rearranged on October 1st, 2014 to consolidate it for ease of future reference.

Tl; dr

I was topic banned from GamerGate and Zoe Quinn by user:Gamaliel at the behest of user:NorthBySouthBaranof for a purported violation of WP:BLP policy. The ban was later reversed by user:Callanecc on technical grounds; per the discussion here:

• "But officially and technically (in the face of discretionary sanctions procedures) Titanium Dragon was never topic banned."

The editing on GamerGate and Zoe Quinn was (and remains as of this date) highly contentious.

I appreciate the support that others expressed for me, and I hope that I can continue to work towards improving the neutrality of the articles in question. I hope that this incident did not discourage anyone from editing and improving Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Zoe Quinn, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Talk pages are not exempt from BLP; you have been warned repeatedly not to use talk page space to make unsupported attacks on article subjects. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof: First off, this is the wrong template. I removed information, I did not add it. Secondly, the information is in violation of WP:BLPSELFPUB's #1 rule: that the text in question not be unduly self-serving. As the text in question is, in fact, unduly self-serving, it shouldn't be used. That's ignoring the WP:NPOV issues it has, as well as WP:UNDUE. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No, you added unsourced, highly-negative defamatory claims to the talk page. As @Gamaliel: just warned you above, that's prohibited. You are not permitted to use a biography's talk page as a soapbox to express your opinions about the biographical subject. If you do not refrain from doing so in the future, I believe you should be topic-banned from anything relating to living people under the discretionary sanctions authorized by ArbCom. You have consistently disregarded the encyclopedia's policies in this matter. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, that. See, this is why you don't use templates. Unfortunately, as I noted below, this is in fact cited in Forbes, as you should well know, given that it has been cited in GamerGate on numerous occasions. And quit threatening me; you've gotten yourself into enough trouble already. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to actually read the template: into an article or any other Wikipedia page. That includes talk pages. And no, the accusations you made on that page are not factual, or even well-argued. As for my statement, it is not a threat. It is a statement of fact that someone will end up topic-banning or blocking you if you keep violating BLP. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It is an attempt to intimidate me. As I noted, the statement was in fact entirely factual. Forbes sources it, as I noted, as do a number of other sources. Zoe Quinn is not a reliable source, especially not on herself. She was engaged in the doxxing of TFYC, as noted by Cinemablend. Forbes notes that the accusations she made against Wizardchan, where she claimed to have been harassed by them, have been called into question and The Escapist edited the article to note that the only source on it was Zoe Quinn herself - and as people noted, she gained a lot of press after she was "harassed". That's reality. That is in reliable sources. You have been warned about attempting to censor discussion of this stuff on the talk page before. You should be familiar with these sources, given your participation on GamerGate. Have you even read any of the sources I've linked to? Ever? Because you continue to claim that no sources say this stuff, and yet, a number do. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no reliable source which says what you said.

It's not "intimidation" to warn you that you're breaching Wikipedia policy.

Go ahead, start an ANI thread that claims I'm "censoring" you by deleting unsourced defamatory content from talk pages. See what happens. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I just repeated everything I said. I sourced it. What part of it wasn't reliably sourced? Incidentally, you do realize that adding that Cracked stuff is, in fact, a violation of BLP, right? Because it totally is. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You are now indefinitely topic banned from any edits and discussion related to Zoe Quinn and GamerGate, broadly construed, under the discretionary sanctions imposed by the Arbitration Committee. This ban has been logged at Wikipedia:Editing_restrictions. Gamaliel (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

We are discussing this issue here. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Woodroar (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe you got banned from GamerGate discussion

Well there goes the last hope of getting the article neutral, and you also were doxxed damn

You got twitter or something to reach you? Loganmac (talk) 22:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@LoganMac: I wouldn't count on the ban lasting; it is going to be appealed. I've been working on something. What did you need to speak to me about? Is it something private? If it is Wiki related, we can just talk here. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Just as an outside party that's been following GamerGate and the wikipedia article/discussion I just want to offer some encouragement. I, as many others obviously, believe you're doing your best to maintain neutrality. I'm not familiar with all of the wiki regulations, but there's obvious POV pushing in the discussion I see taking place. I'm especially disappointed that you were topic ban just as the article went to dispute resolution. It very much appears to outside parties as though you're being targeted to prevent you from commenting. I will be including this incident as an example in future talks I give to my professional IT organization on bias in using and citing online sources. Whether or not the topic ban is lifted, I'd like to thank you for the effort. I hope it won't discourage you from editing in general. It's a thankless, but necessary job. If all reasonable voices are silenced then only the unreasonable are going to be heard.128.90.94.130 (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The most important thing about doing research is understanding that you cannot trust any one source about anything, ever; that is always a bad idea. It doesn't matter who they are, it doesn't matter if they're online or off, it is always an issue to trust just one source - including Wikipedia. No one is reliable on their own; it is always best to look at a number of sources so you don't miss the big picture, and to try and find an opposing point of view if possible and see what people think. Another warning sign is single-source reporting; if the material is dependent on stuff from a single source, it is much less likely to be accurate than if it is from a number of sources and takes a broader view.

It is a lot more work doing your research properly.

I will also note that anything which involves a dispute between two people or groups of people where one group has better access to the media than another is always problematic as well, and requires extra care. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly the point I advocate and part of why GamerGate became so important to me is because it illustrates just that. Although, things seem to be getting better and better as real journalist seem to be getting more involved, and I'm not talking about the ones over at Breitbart. Anyway, I won't bother you again although I'll keep following the bouncing ball. I just wanted to make sure you knew your research and neutrality is being appreciated and I'm sorry things appear to be going so poorly. Politics, it's always dirty.128.90.90.141 (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Topic Ban Discussion

No idea why you're editing Gamergate controversy when you've been topic banned but you can't touch that article, its talk page, or anything related to that topic. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: I had appealed my ban. I had assumed that it had been revoked because I could edit the article, but it is still over on the page. I pinged the guy in question over it. I've never had to deal with something like this before. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You can still edit because you can edit other pages. Wikipedia has no software mechanism to block certain editors from certain pages. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thank you for the clarification. The edits have been reverted and I have gone to the ANI to apologize. I had assumed there was some ability to do this. Sigh. :\ Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read the banning info links carefully. "Broadly construed" means you can't mention the topics anywhere on Wikipedia. This is one of the reasons why there's no software mechanism as the ban is effect throughout Wikipedia. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@NeilN: Thank you. I'm looking it over now. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 24 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Virginia Tech massacre page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Fixed; the issue was that I removed two lines which had unique references not used anywhere else in the document. When I removed the cited passages, there was no need for the refs. Went into the article and commented them out of the ref list in case they need to be found again. Titanium Dragon (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate Ban

Pardon my language: Wikipedia fucking sucks. I've stopped editing because of the dark irony: indescribably awful Wiki-trolls with their own agendas shaming others for destroying their limited world view. I am frustrated, in particular, with the treatment of those who have rightfully come out and exposed this whole mess for what it is: manipulation while using "Feminism" as a subterfuge to cover up everything and destroy anyone that might shatter it all. In all my years of editing, I have never seen a blatant ignorance and disregard of what is considered a Reliable Source or Noteworthy in order to keep the truth from seeing the light of day. Zoe Quinn and her ilk have set women and Feminism back YEARS and, at once, have completely destroyed it. I KNOW women who worked to get this country where it is today. They'd be appalled if they saw what was going on with GamerGate. Anyway, I said my piece. Thank you for doing what you did. This really needs to be archived. You fought the good fight, my friend. TabascoMan77 (talk) 00:10, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

BLP topic ban issued above

Titanium Dragon, I have removed the topic ban imposed by Gamaliel from WP:BLPLOG as the discretionary sanctions procedure was not followed and hence technically and officially the ban never existed and was unable to be enforced. I will give you an official discretionary sanctions alert shortly and note that anything and everything you do related the topic area may be considered. Past actions may also be used as background, so I'd suggest that there is a fairly low bar for tolerating misbehaviour. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Roger that. Thank you. I'm sorry you had to deal with this.

Incidentally: the thing which brought down the heat on my head was (to the best of my recollection, assuming I said what I'm pretty sure I said), depending on your point of view, either a case of discussing something which was found in a primary source (an interview), or a case of synthesis (as the secondary sources noted everything, but didn't put it all together into one thing). I'm still not entirely clear on whether or not those are actually supposed to be BLP vios in talk space after reading over the relevant policies; some degree of synthesis is almost inevitable when discussing what to include in an article, as people discuss stuff then point out that X isn't -really- said by the source in question (which is what got me in trouble here, even though it was purely in the talk space; obviously WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH apply to article space). Likewise, directly quoting interviews is common, and indeed, the article has at various points directly cited folks on things which were clearly accusations against other persons.

Also, what is your opinion: re: citing stuff on talk pages? Should we be citing something every time we talk about it, or should we be okay if we cite it and then discuss it in a later post in the same thread? Should we recite it if we bring it up in another post on the same talk page?

I'm going to try and be extra cautious here wrt GamerGate/Zoe Quinn, but I'd really like to know in general for future editing of BLP-related subjects. Also, because I want to make sure that we're all operating on the same page here; if this sort of thing is unacceptable, I'll try to keep an eye out for it in the future both in myself and others.

Thanks again. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It depends a lot on the independence and reliability of the source, how contentious the material is, how widely reported it is and how much controversy surrounds the issue. A more direct answer (nowithstanding the it depends in the last sentence) is that if what is being talked about has been cited to an independent reliable source which the people commenting is so, and the continuing mentions of its content don't say anything different to what's already been that discussion. I would recite it anytime it isn't already part of the discussion just to be clear what you are discussing. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - BLP

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, 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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you

For your attempts to bring neutrality and objectivity.Sorry to see that you were personally attacked.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate Article

I find it quite peculiar how many of the Admins editing the GamerGate article (A.K.A NorthBySouthBaranof, TRPoD, Tarc, and Ryūlóng) are extremely defiant to add new sources. They just always appear to bend the Guidelines every which way just to the exact point where one's own source (Pro-GamerGate in this instance) would appear to be false or unreliable. And they aren't very secretive about it, either.

Just recently they removed a source approved by Masem (one of the most neutral of them) was removed from the article because of their personal belief that it was a "fringe conspiracy", despite it being reported by multiple sources. Beyond that they just continue to re-read the epitaph of very specific guidelines, if not, just give their personal opinion on it claiming it as wrong.

The thing that those four administrator have in common is they all have violation warnings for going against for major editing conflicts on their talkpages. One even has warning for going against the NPOV.

One way or another, we can agree that they are quite biased and corrupt, shoving out any instance that they may be proven wrong on a site that is supposed to give the facts rather than their biased one-way views. Derpen (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Derpen: None of those people are admins. If they are pretending to be admins, you should bring it up on WP:ANI. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Why exactly are they blocking access to editing the articles, deeming what is right and wrong, and placing themselves as higher authority? If they are just simply posing as "admin" then this could become a controversy within itself, as being actually PART of the main controversy. Derpen (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Make a post on ANI detailing their actions if you want action taken against them; I'm a reviewer, not an admin. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Just a simple quesstion, this Ryulong guy has decided to come after me now because I posted a screencap on twitter critizing Wikipedia, he posted on ANI outing me for having posted the screencap on twitter and reddit, giving links. Could I make a counter-claim against this guy, since you do know he seems to have a very uncivil approach to people, digging their past. I got all of this archived, and I know it's outside wikipedia, but on the same twitter where he told me to "learn to fucking read" (i didn't look for it, he replied to me so that's how I found it, he found that reddit username by googling my username) he calls gamergate people different slurs, clearly showing a strong bias, could I make a case out of this on the ANI or will his friends topic ban me for "doxxing" and harassing them like it happened to you? Loganmac (talk) 20:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

If you feel people are acting in a bullying manner, I would recommend going through the talk page history and documenting all instances of his poor behavior or rule-breaking behavior and compile a post detailing said behavior and submit it to the ANI. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

PS. Please note that he was desysopped in the past for bullying other users. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

PPS. I looked over the ANI discussion. Outside Wikipedia stuff doesn't matter; it is on-wiki behavior that counts, unless he is engaging in WP:CANVAS, which is to say, trying to gather people from off of Wikipedia to edit the article and influence consensus. Titanium Dragon (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe you were coaching these people to act against me in particular.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

People don't understand the ANI process. If someone is behaving badly, then knowing how to discuss it properly is helpful to helping others arrive at the right decision. If they can't find the evidence to support their assertions, then the ANI will fail. As I specifically noted, it is mostly on-Wiki behavior which counts, as well as behavior which directly affects Wikipedia (canvassing, outing, attempting to intimidate users elsewhere, ect.). Merely being unpleasant elsewhere on the internet is not grounds for action on Wikipedia.

You've been very bitey and aggressive towards folks, and not especially civil. You have referred to official processes as a "farce" and gotten very unhappy over the idea that an article which you claim to be "defending" has a content dispute. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP editing

I noticed you had some trouble with people suggesting your comments and/or edits were a problem with regard to WP:BLP. Regardless of the merits of those suggestions, it is not desirable to edit the BLP policy, even if only to add a "failed verification" tag (diff). There are a couple of reasons why such an edit is highly undesirable—only articles have such tags; policy pages are not edited without good reason, and that should occur after asking questions on the policy talk page; an editor known to have an issue with regard to BLP should not be editing that policy. BLP is simple stuff—do not use Wikipedia to post negativity about any living or recently deceased person on any page (unless the negativity regards encyclopedic information for an article about a notable person and is extremely well sourced, per the BLP policy). Johnuniq (talk) 08:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. As I noted on the talk page, the issue was that the bit noted there (including talk pages) wasn't actually noted in the source material cited; I started an RFC suggesting a change to the wording of the article to better emphasize BLP policy with regards to talk pages, as presently the intro seems to imply that WP:NPOV and WP:NOR apply to talk space whenever discussing living persons, when in fact it is WP:RS which applies there. I'd appreciate your input on the subject matter, as I think that the present wording is confusing as it doesn't seem to agree with the rest of the policy, which notes how it applies specifically to non-article spaces in a different way. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right, that ref at WP:BLP is oddly placed. From where it's located, I can see where one would assume it refers to the phrase "including talk pages", but it's more about the phrase "and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages" so perhaps it should be moved over. The issue at that ARB was whether BLP prohibited statements about a living person only at the article about that subject, or on Talk pages or other articles; in other words, could an editor be sanctioned for statements about John Doe in an article about Jane Doe, or even on Talk:Jane Doe. (It had more to do with that, of course, but that's the gist of it.) And to answer your question, they can. BLP applies literally everywhere on Wikipedia: "Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page" (bold and italics in original) and "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, persondata, article titles and drafts" (WP:BLP), "There is reasonable allowance for speculation, suggestion, and personal knowledge on talk pages, with a view to prompting further investigation, but it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements. Pay particular attention to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which applies to talk pages as well as to articles" (WP:TALK), and "Most community policies including No personal attacks and Biographies of living persons will apply to your user space, just as elsewhere" (WP:USER). I know we haven't had the best history, but if you're interested, I can put together some examples of BLP compliance and violations, SYNTH when it comes to BLPs, how to bring up BLP issues on Talk pages, etc. Obviously, you don't have to accept. But if you have any questions, feel free to ask. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 08:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

"Virgins"

Would you stop bringing this up already? I've explained time and time again that I am referring to the users of 4chan's /v/ by the self-appelation they have, which is "/v/irgin", including the forward slashes. Why can you not understand this?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Titanium Dragon again.The discussion is about the topic Topic. Thank you. —Woodroar (talk) 08:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Mediation

If you are interested in participating, there is a request for mediation regarding the GamerGate article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:29, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@The Devil's Advocate: I added myself. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "GamerGate (controversy)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 25 October 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 05:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

WHO Report

Please check the WHO report. I believe it shows a total of 7492. Jaerik (talk) 11:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yup. Fixed it and changed it to 7,492. I suspect someone added +1 to it when they added the Spanish case incorrectly. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC

It's a good idea keep the discussion separate from the ivoting. Keep any comments you have there. You can always ping an editor so they will find your reply to their ivote. SW3 5DL (talk) 05:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "GamerGate (controversy)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 25 October 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 05:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Topic-ban reimposed

Per the reasons set out in the ANI thread linked to above [1], I am re-imposing the topic ban on all edits (both content edits and discussion, in all namespaces) regarding the so-called Gamergate controversy and persons involved with it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fut.Perf.: Without even giving me the chance to respond? I'm afraid that I am going to have to appeal that. User:NorthBySouthBaranof has a history of being abusive and trying to abuse the rules in this manner, and I'm afraid that you have not looked into this issue sufficiently. The material in question is not problematic in any way. I will be more than happy to bring up this in Arbcom, should you so desire. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Considering the thread you're currently hanging by, ArbCom would not be your friend. By the way, you deleted very important advice, but seeing as your topic ban is back in force - and rightly so - you might need to ignore it the panda ₯’ 11:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: I'd take a closer look at the statement of them "deleting" you're advice. They edited at 11:09, you responded at 11:12, and the diff you posted here is at 11:13, where they edit their previous statement and "delete" yours. To me it looks like your edit got lost as opposed to deleted. (delete is in parenthesis because it is a technical deletion, however it does not look like an intended deletion as your comment implies.) --Kyohyi (talk) 12:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. It was not intentionally deleted; I never even saw it until you linked me to it here. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

As I seem to have forgotten this yesterday: this restriction has been logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions; instructions about appeals can be found at WP:Discretionary sanctions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion about the state of the wiki article

I have no idea how talk pages work so I probably messed this up, forgive me. Hop on twitter (I'm @fullshading) instead, much easier to discuss things there. Pizzatreeep (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Pizzatreeep: What did you want to discuss? Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic HERE. Thank you. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

AN discussion on topic ban

I have started a discussion about your topic ban here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Well if they want you to file your own appeal, I suggest you do so. PS. Lock the old thread if you create a new one, there is no point in talking about this in two places. --Obsidi (talk) 03:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween greetings!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Titanium Dragon:
Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia. Have a fun Halloween!
    – SW3 5DL (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

ArbCom notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GamerGate and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Titanium Dragon

I've raised the issue of your participation in the 3rd Gamergate arbitration request at the enforcement page, because I am still fairly certain you are banned from the topic area in all manners.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:16, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

500-word limit on ArbCom statements

They're threatening to delete any statements over the 500-word limit. Please revise yours accordingly. Random the Scrambled ^(?) 00:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up; it has been amended. Original can be found here. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:17, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

For not giving up on the core Wikipedia principles of Neutrality and Objectivity. DSA510 Pls No H8 06:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

"Virgins" again

This is the last time I am going to tell you this. Stop intentionally mischaracterizing my use of the term "/v/irgin" as insulting anyone. It is a term used for and by users of 4chan's /v/ board [2] [3] [4]. I have corrected you on this so many times. Remove this claim from your ArbCom statement.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Amended to /v/irgin. However, you deliberately used it in an insulting, derogatory manner, stating that you were rapidly archiving stuff because "every Redditor and /v/irgin with a grudge came here" and you were dismissive of their complaints because you didn't like what they had to say. Added to that, the term "virgin" is frequently used by the anti-GamerGate types as a means of insulting gamers and other folks who disagree with them. Would you prefer that I link to all the occasions on which you have cursed at other users instead? Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No. I did not deliberately use it in an insulting tone. It's used in the same tone as "Redditor". Amending your statement to have the slashes does not change anything. It doesn't matter what you think is meant by it. I have told you my intent on at least 4 separate occasions and you fail to assume good faith in me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:56, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, you said that you were archiving material very rapidly because of who and what people were. You did that assuming they came from places which most of them were very likely not even familiar with. You did this while simultaneously claiming that there was consensus for your point of view, while alongside people who were calling others misogynists and otherwise using language which was reflective of off-Wiki harassment which was taking place. And you have refused to submit to any form of mediation or outside conflict resolution on the issue, in fact, casting aspersions on people's motivations in doing so and swearing at them.

The only reason I'm involved with this is because someone asked me to be involved. I made my statement. I will help the administration arrive at a decision about the behavior I have witnessed. I'm tired of dealing with bad behavior - not just on Wikipedia, but even reading about how these people behave elsewhere.

Everyone always assumes I'm on a side. I've been invited to random GamerGate stuff. I've taken a look at it. And while I am very much anti-corruption, anti-censorship, anti-incompetence, and anti-bullying, when I join a channel and I hear people ranting about DARPA, it is not the place for me. Just as I am a feminist, pro-gay rights, anti-racist, and against discrimination against transgendered individuals, and sometimes get invited to various social issue events, but I do not affiliate myself with the so-called SJW crowd, which is identity politics at its worst.

WP:NPOV is not just a Wikipedia policy. I don't always succeed in taking a neutral point of view, but I do try to look at things as objectively as possible. I'm not always right. I'm not always neutral. But I do try to be, and I do try to understand others. I don't always succeed. I make mistakes. I am not unbiased. But I do try.

You should, too. I understand why you feel set upon - you look out and see people talking about your behavior and making you out to be the bad guy. You are afraid they're going to get you and your friends blocked from Wikipedia, or reveal embarrassing personal information about yourself which may reflect poorly on you. You see these people as being part of some big organization set on harassing people, trying to drive people away who they don't like.

But you should look at things from a perspective other than your own as well. Does your behavior represent how you think that people should behave on Wikipedia? Would you like to be treated as you have treated others? If someone with a history similar to yours behaved as you have on the article, and you disagreed with them, how would that make you feel?

You don't need to answer me here. In fact, I'd prefer that you did not. But please do think about it, and maybe consider whether or not people are unhappy with your behavior for a reason. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The archive was set at a high rate because of the high influx of new editors from offsite repeating the same arguments as everyone that came before them. It was at a point when threads that were weeks old were being responded to repeatedly rather than get archived because no one other than editors feeling like piling on to an old thread was contributing to them anymore. It's the same reason the current archival rate is set at 2 days. Everything you are saying about me and about the debate is your assumption. Have a nice day.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a thinly veiled attempt to generate drama. I suggest not replying after that last message. --DSA510 Pls No H8 08:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You act as if your hands are clean here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:18, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Are you still on about those archive links? --DSA510 Pls No H8 09:19, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate opened

You were recently listed as a party to 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)} 22:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate evidence limits

The arbs are leaning toward a doubling of the usual limits on evidence for this specific case. I am still waiting for final sign-off, but it seems likely that most participants will not need to trim evidence. Three relevant points:

• Given the substantial increase in limits, the usual acceptance if counts go a bit over will not be granted. Treat the limits as absolute.
• The limits apply to both direct evidence and rebuttal to others.
• Despite the increase, it is highly desirable to be as succinct as possible. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Erdely Discussion

A discussion in which you may be interested is occurring here. BlueSalix (talk) 03:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Article Split Proposal

A discussion in which you may be interested is occurring here. BlueSalix (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate arbitration case: evidence and workshop

In the interests of making this case more easily manageable, it is likely that we will prune the parties list to limit it to those against whom evidence has been submitted. Therefore, if anyone has anything to add, now is the time to do so.

See the list of parties not included in the evidence as of 8 Dec 14.

Please note that the purpose of the /Evidence page is to provide narrative, context and all the diffs. As diffs can usually be interpreted in various ways, to avoid ambiguity, they should be appended to the allegation that's being made. If the material is private and the detail has been emailed to ArbCom, add [private evidence] instead of diffs.

The /Workshop page builds on evidence. FOFs about individual editors should contain a summary of the allegation made in /Evidence, and diffs to illustrate the allegation. Supplying diffs makes it easier for the subject of the FOF to respond and much easier for arbitrators to see whether your FOF has substance.

No allegations about other editors should be made either in /Evdence or in the /Workshop without supporting diffs. Doing so may expose you to findings of making personal attacks and casting aspersions.

Also, please note that the evidence lengths have been increased from about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for parties and about 500 words and about diffs for non-parties to a maximum of 2000 words and 200 diffs for parties and 1000 words and 100 diffs for non-parties. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

Thanks. I really hate to have to stick my nose back into this, but I suppose I must one final time. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Please strike the BLP nonsense

Please strike/remove the nonsense push in the Gamergate Evidence page that the well documented harassment against Quinn and Sarkeesin has been made up because you dont believe the reliable sources. That is the same nonsense that got you topic banned and repeating your offenses of BLP will result in not only a topic ban but worse. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@TheRedPenOfDoom: Was anything I said even misleading? Zoe Quinn's previous claims of harassment lead to the harassment of her supposed harassers, no law enforcement action was ever taken, and The Escapist ended up having to apologize for it and add a disclaimer. GameJournoPros is better attested than the August/September death threats against Zoe Quinn. That's not to say that they did not happen, but that the evidence for them is not very strong and dependent on the statements of someone who has previously required a major publication to apologize for printing her claims about the exact same sort of incident previously. Do you understand why that is problematic under Wikipedia policy? The same is true of a great deal of criminal activity which has been thrown around the press but which has, apparently, resulted in no action from law enforcement, or even, as far as I can tell, the notification of law enforcement to criminal activity. Or heck, the claims that Phil Fish is going to quit and sell his company after the hack - something which, as far as I can tell, never happened despite being widely reported at the time.

The only thing I can find evidence of in terms of law enforcement intervention is the FBI investigating threats against Sarkeesian, and the only thing they've really said beyond that she got them (which she undoubtedly did - the USU was, IIRC, sent not only to her but also to the university) was that there was no credible threat. If you have found something to the contrary, I'd be more than happy to change my statement; I posted it because I have continued to not find this material and it is kind of important. We are stating that these events happened for certain, but we have, ultimately, only one source for many of these claims - the person who was harassed. Sure, they've been reprinted in upteen many sources, which makes it very verifiable, but we're making factual statements here, allegedly in Wikipedia's voice - and we're giving them enormous emphasis. It should be noted - it is certainly notable, and noteworthy - but we don't have much independent information about them. Is that not concerning to you, as a Wikipedia editor? We don't use "alleged" for their claims of criminal activity, which we are supposed to do per WP:SAID when "alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined."

You are quick to complain only when the reliability of anti-GamerGate sources are questioned. Why? I noted issues with the reliability of multiple parties, but you have chosen to single out Zoe Quinn (and Sarkeesian, bizarrely, who I did not even question - as I specifically noted, she is the only one that we do have evidence of a law enforcement investigation and independent confirmation on, at least to the best of my knowledge). The emphasis is on the fact that we are repeating the claims of people who have reliability issues without making any note of such, and giving a great deal of emphasis to a number of claims which lack independent verification. This is dangerous and problematic if we're not careful about what we're doing.

You should step away and look at it with fresh eyes. If you read the Al Jazeera article I linked to in my post, ask yourself: does this sound more neutral than Wikipedia's article? If so, why did the Wikipedia article go so wrong, when NPOV is supposed to be so important to us?

Right now, the article reads like a rant about how GamerGate is super wrong guys, seriously. That's unacceptable. White supremacy has a neutrally written page; why can't GamerGate? Wikipedia is neutral and impartial; if GamerGate is really so bad, you shouldn't have any problem with the reader getting that impression with a neutrally voiced article. No one thinks that Adolf Hitler is a good guy after reading his article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Christ myth theory

I am contacting you because you are a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism/Participants. Could you help us to modify a WP page to bring it to a more fair and balanced state? The "Christ myth theory" article has been hopelessly controlled by Christians who seem desperate to bring skepticism about the historicity of Jesus down to the level of a childish cult or something - they have even tagged the article with categories. " I made a number of copy edits, and added some authors to the Books section, and user User:TMDrew reverted every last one under the excuse "The authors mentioned are not respected scholars in this field" - clearly a violation of WP guidelines. I reverted, then user User:Bill the Cat 7 reverted my edit. I reverted his, he reverted with rationale "Then put them back in without that part. Also, it is a FACT that there is almost universal consensus."
Anyway, your help would be greatly appreciated in combatting obstinate contributors like that who do not follow guidelines - please help.14:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea who this is, but I would like to note that it is against Wikipedia rules to canvas for support. I would recommend, if you have good reliable sources on the subject matter, to bring this up in some sort of form of conflict resolution rather than poking random users on Wikipedia, or ANI if the article is being defaced. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Dragon.Geĸrίtzl (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

ANI

Please weigh it at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_ban_for_Cwobeel_for_BLP_violations - Cwobeel (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2014 (UTC)