Saigo no Yume

Explanation for your question at WP:AE

We have had to prevent new editors from editing the Gamergate article and talk page, because there has been a history of pretty serious, near-continuous disruption by new accounts. So the rule is "more than 500 edits, and more than 30 days", in order to ensure that people participating there wouldn't disrupt things; they're less likely to be fake accounts, and they're more likely to understand our policies better. This is, as far as I know, the only topic this applies to, so you shouldn't run into this problem editing about any other topic.

I've removed your question from WP:AE, because that page is really only to request enforcement of the rules against other editors, whereas you were just asking a question. But the answer to your original question can be found in the FAQ on the article talk page: Talk:Gamergate controversy#FAQ, question Q5. We generally don't put citations/footnotes in the lede. Everything in the lede is a summary of what is in the body of the article, and the body of the article does have citations. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Saigo no Yume, 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

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Floquenbeam (talk) 18:42, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Gamergate notification

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.

Johnuniq (talk) 21:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

What the hell is this? I haven't edited anything yet. Saigo no Yume (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

@Saigo no Yume: It is a notice that the topic of Gamergate and all related issues (feminism and videogames) are under sanctions. You're being notified so that when and if you violate those sanctions you cannot claim that no one told you about them.

This is because there are so, so, so many people who create an account and then try to edit the article immediately (such as yourself) and then get in trouble very quickly and then find themselves topic banned or outright blocked. Since you expressed confusion about this (it's pretty straightforward), I'd suggest that you have a great deal to learn about Wikipedia before you jump into the deepest of the deep waters.--Jorm (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Maybe if the Gamergate article wasn't so ridiculous and the techniques used to keep out opposing voice so unique and harsh, then new editors wouldn't be attracted to the obvious mess with the desire to fix it. Saigo no Yume (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Or - or - maybe if there weren't so many people who come from reddit, 4chan, and 8chan in order to change the text to remove all references to the inherent antifeminism, harassment, misogyny that Gamergate produces in direct violation to the rules of Wikipedia, then maybe there wouldn't need to be so harsh of techniques.--Jorm (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Amusing assertion, but the "rule" was created to protect someone who is now topic banned for harassing people. Saigo no Yume (talk) 22:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

...That . . . that is not what the rule is there for. I don't know where you're getting your information (I'm guessing reddit or 4chan) but that's not at all what happened. Good luck with your quest.--Jorm (talk) 22:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

That's exactly why it was created. TheRedPenofDoom had a complaint against him, but instead of sanctioning him, the admin decided to ban new editors from the Gamergate talk page. TheRedPenofDoom is now topic banned. Looks like someone was being protected when they should've been sanctioned, but you guys love those sanctions so you are fighting tooth and nail to keep them. Saigo no Yume (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

State the evidence that I am a sockpuppet. I'll refute that evidence directly. This is bullshit. Having someone loudly and repeatedly accuse someone of being a sockpuppet, for reasons I already showed were false, does not make someone a sockpuppet. Saigo no Yume (talk) 23:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I should be unblocked so I can defend myself in an open area for all admins to see. Just because someone whines to a board saying it is "obvious" that I'm a sockpuppet does not make it so. Who am I a sockpuppet of? What is the evidence? He has presented none. I should have the opportunity to defend myself where he made the accusation. Saigo no Yume (talk) 23:46, 7 September 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).

Saigo no Yume (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

No reason was given other than it is "obvious" by a very loud and persistent editor. Unblock me so I can defend myself on that board and refute any evidence he can present - he has presented none because he has none. He hasn't even figured out who to accuse me of being a sockpuppet of. I promise only to edit that thread until a decision is reached by set of uninvolved admins. Saigo no Yume (talk) 23:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

After extended discussion with you, I had already come to the same conclusion and a block was already entering my mind. Keilana simply beat me to the punch. That said, your activity shows that you aren't new, you haven't given a plausible explanation for your singular focus on Gamergate, and your behavior so far has been consistent with that of a sockpuppet. "Obvious sock" blocks don't require a sockmaster, although we always prefer one. In the case of Gamergate, this isn't always possible. In this case, I think she made the right call, I see nothing presented to indicate her judgement was faulty. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:58, 7 September 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.

What specifically did I say that makes you think I'm a sockpuppet? What specific evidence? That's very simple.

Do all new editors require "plausible explanations" for why they want to edit specific topics? That's ridiculous. You are an involved admin. You shouldn't be involved here. Saigo no Yume (talk) 00:03, 8 September 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).

Saigo no Yume (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

How am I supposed to make a convincing unblock request when nobody will show me the evidence that I'm a sockpuppet and nobody will respond unless I make an unblock request? I guess this is how the gamergate admins normally operate - "obvious" - no evidence is presented and so nothing can be refuted.Saigo no Yume (talk) 00:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Boring Gamergate crap. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:12, 8 September 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.

• Talking to you and answering questions on Floq's talk page doesn't make me WP:INVOLVED, to say otherwise is just silly. And there are no "Gamergate admins". I've never made a single block to anyone regarding that topic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Present evidence that I'm a sockpuppet. I am not. This is just a stupid excuse to ban someone with a different opinion. Saigo no Yume (talk) 00:48, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Behavioural evidence is more than enough. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 00:54, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but linking to my entire contribution history doesn't work. State and show SPECIFIC things I've said and done that prove that I'm a sockpuppet. You tried this shit before with the RedPenofDoom crap, but I debunked that easily. You are afraid of listing any more specific accusations because I'll be able to prove you are full of it with them too. Saigo no Yume (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

You didn't debunk it; nobody bought that explanation in the slightest. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 01:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I was told the only way I could've heard of the RedPenofDoom was if I had previous knowledge. My history shows a case ABOUT him was specifically linked to for me to read. To give some history, I asked where the 500 edit minimum post requirement came from and it was researched for me and that was the link given. That is a complete debunking of his accusation that I'm a sockpuppet because I referenced the RedPenofDoom. If you didn't "buy" that then it is because your mind was made up beforehand. It is plain to see on Floq's page where it was linked for me to read. Saigo no Yume (talk) 01:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Here are the TWO posts where it was linked to on his talk page:

OK, found it (we do not have a user friendly way of recording sanctions): Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions/Log#GamerGate, in the bottom section "Page-level sanctions" refers to here: [3]. It was an AE decision, which means it could theoretically be appealed at WP:AE (I know, I deleted your thread there. My bad. But it would still need to be clearly labelled as an appeal). But as I said, I can pretty much guarantee that people are tired enough of the unending drama of this topic that failure is essentially guaranteed, especially if you have no other edits to any other topics. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

       You got there just before I did, and I agree it is fruitless to try to get it repealed. And yes, it is ridiculous that we are one of the largest websites in the world and can't find sanctions more easily. The actual AE is here, and wasn't exactly a panel, but the outcome is still supported strongly. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

But oh no, as soon as I SAID RedPenofDOOm you started screaming sockpuppet all over the place. The accusation is bullshit and this shows it. Saigo no Yume (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked

I've revoked access to your talk page because enough is enough and the community threshold for nonsense in Gamergate related abuse has been reached here. You are welcome to use WP:BASC to request further review, but it is pretty obvious to the few admin who have reviewed your case that you are a sockpuppet of someone previously blocked in the Gamergate topic area based on your history. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 04:09, 8 September 2015 (UTC)