User talk:BenMcLean

RLDS article
I copied the following from the article Talk:Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints:

IvoShandor is correct. This article, as written currently, has nothing to do with the title. It should be merged into Community of Christ article or the Restoration Branches article. You guys take your pick. It is not significant enough to stand on it's own. Ben, what is your opinion about a merge; you pick the most appropriate article? --Storm Rider (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What are your thoughts? --Storm Rider (talk) 16:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought I already gave them. Haven't had much time for wikipedia in a long while. --BenMcLean (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Reformed Egyptian
Actually, Mormon 9:32 does use the phrase "reformed Egyptian". ...comments? ~B F izz 23:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's good to know. Thank you very much. For some reason I couldn't find where the phrase originated anywhere! The Book of Mormon article should cite where that is found when it first uses the term. --BenMcLean (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info
...Here! Btw, Ben, do you have an Internet link to a document or publication (or I suppose such a document's or publication's publisher's name (if known), publication name, title (if any), author (if known), and date (if known) that does so) that can be used as a citation to verify this information you've helpfully provided?--Hodgson-Burnett&#39;s Secret Garden (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. When you recently edited Restoration Branches, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Liberal theology (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) 13:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dark Side of the Rainbow, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mashup (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) 10:46, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Your comment...
You made a statement on the talk page of List of sports team names and mascots derived from indigenous peoples that the article is "one-sided". If you have WP:reliable sources to support this opinion, the remedy is to edit the article using those sources. Otherwise you are stating a personal opinion, which is of no use in the building of an encyclopedia.

(PS. New sections to a talk page are added to the bottom, not the top. This is automatically done when using the "New section" option at the top of every page.) FriendlyFred (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Possibly
Thanks. I actually think Illogicopedia covered it better than Wikipedia. They pretty much covered all of the main points of the GamerGate controversy, or at least Wikipedia's perspective on it, without that annoying "neutral point of view" getting in the way, requiring them to actually quote some people who might know something about it at any point. --BenMcLean (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Standard notification
Gamaliel ( talk ) 15:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
You're on the verge of a block for disruptive editing and a topic ban. Your proposal is disruption of the talkpage to make a point. Please stop, and please self-revert.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This is not appropriate behavior. I will be glad to discuss your objections, but this is not the proper way to express your disagreement. Gamaliel ( talk ) 16:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, that's reasonable. Just covering up what I have to say with a hat because you disagree, without even responding to it, is not reasonable. --BenMcLean (talk) 16:56, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm covering it up because it is disruptive and you are grandstanding to make your point about the article, which is that you think the article is "making GamerGate look like a terrorist organization". You can discuss that with other editors without creating disruptive page move requests to underline the point you are trying to make.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 16:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you acknowledge that the article is in fact describing GamerGate as a terrorist organization dedicated to threatening women? Because that is what it in fact says.


 * Also, everything I said got covered up, not just the move request. Anytime anyone says that the current article is bad and ought to be changed, they get their comment covered up like that. --BenMcLean (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Perhaps if you adopted a less confrontational and hyperbolic posture you might be taken more seriously? As Gamaliel notes, everything you've done on that talkpage today undermines your credibility.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:05, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * What would you suggest that a "credible" person would do, in the case that a consumer revolt demanding journalistic ethics is being described as a terrorist organization about threatening women? --BenMcLean (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Or, is believing that GamerGate is a terrorist organization about threatening women simply part of what being "credible" means, by definition? --BenMcLean (talk) 17:09, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Article content is matter to be discussed between the editors working on the page.  You will note that when you restored your initial comment without restoring your statement attacking other editors, I allowed it to remain and did not rehat it.  If you can behave in a matter complaint with Wikipedia policies you can have your say about article content on the talk page.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * What about when they actually are being dishonest?
 * You yourself described dissenting editors on this topic as wanting to behead people. Don't you think that was uncalled for? --BenMcLean (talk) 17:21, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * No he didn't. Please drop the hyperbole and please read metaphor and rhetoric.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * It's right there. Heads on pikes. Being a rhetorical metaphor doesn't make it civil. --BenMcLean (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I have reviewed your previous contributions to this topic area, which consist of long complaints targeted at other editors (including one that ended with the phrase "you cretins") and no evidence of productive behavior or editing. Your comments today indicate that you are unable or unwilling to distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate behavior. Thus I am imposing the standard Gamergate topic ban for six months. This topic ban means you are "prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed." Any uninvolved administrator may lift this topic ban without my consent if you are able to demonstrate to them an understanding of the difference between appropriate and inappropriate behavior towards other editors and of proper talk page decorum. Gamaliel ( talk ) 17:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I want my name on the role of honor. --BenMcLean (talk) 18:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Sanction endorsed, since it is clear that you are pursuing a policy of disruptive conduct.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction
Gamaliel ( talk ) 18:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

AE
Please keep comments under your own statement, referencing other editors' comments as needed. Please move the comments you've made under other editors' statements to your statement and make the necessary @Xxxx notations to indicate responses. . Acroterion   (talk)   22:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh I see. Will do that. --BenMcLean (talk) 02:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I loved your arguments about the Gamergate page
But nobody can resist a coordinated cabal of socks and sockmasters like PetertheFourth, Tarc, Ryulong and NorthbySouthBaranof. The fact that they haven't been banned for obvious sockpuppetry is a huge strike against the credibility of admins around here. I doubt you'll even get this message because they probably have some of their socks and meatpuppets stalking your talk page now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.26.237 (talk) 18:01, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Advice
Hello BenMcLean, I noticed your recent edits to Talk:Gamergate controversy and Talk:Gender bias on Wikipedia. I wanted to advise you that these edits fall within the scope of your topic ban. I appreciate that editors are not always aware that topic bans include all namespaces (i.e. the ban includes talk pages too) so I have simply reverted you where possible and am leaving this note as advice.

Finally, to avoid any confusion, I am leaving this note as a regular editor as I may not act as an administrator in this area.

CIreland (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * [personal attacks redacted] I am not going to help you by pretending to comply with this partisan heresy hunt as if it were a legitimate attempt to protect Wikipedia from abuse when all involved know very well that it isn't. --BenMcLean (talk) 15:35, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

To make my position on this more clear: Not only is the "topic ban" in my case a dishonest partisan political witch hunt. My point is that is most likely the case for every single contributor who has received one related to GamerGate or feminism. Perhaps not all, but certainly most. I encourage anyone who's got it with a spare moment to violate it (in a constructive way, or a way that would be considered constructive apart from the witch hunt) simply for the sake of violating it in order to force an outright site-wide ban. Larger and larger bans and ever more broad topic bans for all heretics will, I think, eventually show how a tiny political minority dominate this whole process and will either permanently discredit Wikipedia or force it to change. --BenMcLean (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

TL:DR I'm just following due diligence to make sure that, "Anyone who disagrees with orthodox opinion gets blocked" is true literally as well as effectively. It simplifies discussions of Wikipedia when you can clear out the passive aggressive, "Well they didn't quite ban you completely" stuff. --BenMcLean (talk) 15:54, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Enforcement request. CIreland (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision and for violating your topic ban, personal attacks, and WP:POINT, you have been blocked temporarily from editing for 24 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page Gamaliel  ( talk ) 19:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC).  Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted a procedure instructing administrators as follows: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

October 2015
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Gamaliel ( talk ) 20:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Updating Gamergate alert
Doug Weller talk 16:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

 * I am posting this on your talkpage out of an abundance of caution solely because you recently edited Talk:Sarah Jeong and, as the message says, not suggesting any policy violation by you. Abecedare (talk) 02:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes yes, I'm well aware that special rules go into effect to promote left wing politics and suppress any information which might undermine the narrative, even when that information is all over the mainstream press. If it gets covered, it'll be covered when the story's out of the news cycle so that Wikipedia doesn't help spread any politically inconvenient truths when it matters. Meanwhile, when any right wing person has a scandal, info about that will be all over their page immediately in order to take maximum political advantage of the information while it's still current. --BenMcLean (talk) 13:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

March 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Gab (social network), you may be blocked from editing. Doug Weller talk 15:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I see you did the same earlier this year. Strike three and it will be clear that you are not here to improve Wikipedia. Doug Weller  talk 15:36, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to post-1932 American politics and articles and content relating to GamerGate and gender disputes
Doug Weller talk 15:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you explain what was wrong with what I said? --BenMcLean (talk) 15:41, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Well, at the Gab talk page you wrote "This article isn't clear enough that this is a Nazi site only for Nazis. I think you need to double down on that, like maybe with some screen shots of pictures of Hitler and maybe find a picture of the creators frowning, like to make them look even more angry and extreme." You didn't mean any of it and it wasn't a constructive suggestion for the article. I think most experienced editors would call that trolling. At another article you wrote "If there was any honesty on Wikipedia at all, this would be called the 2019 March for Life incident." That's just an attack at Wikipedia, or rather its editors. Neither of them constructive. Behavior on talk pages is among those things covered by discretionary sanctions. Doug Weller  talk 17:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And reading that last one again, I think you need another alert to help you avoid problems at abortion related articles. Doug Weller  talk 17:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Doug Weller talk 17:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Would that comment have been acceptable if you thought I meant it? --BenMcLean (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


 * No. Doug Weller  talk 13:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Why not? I didn't even disagree with the current direction of the coverage. Just suggested having more of it and adding pictures. --BenMcLean (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

I still think that was pretty hilarious. I wonder if User:Doug Weller has any more giant templates to spam --BenMcLean (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

 * That's all a lie. These bogus elections can't actually change anything. --BenMcLean (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)