User talk:Skyrock84

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 Arbitration/Requests/Case 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, Greedo  8  19:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015

 * Obvious GamerGate-related sleeper sock. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

"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 General sanctions/Gamergate. --Skyrock84 (talk) 20:42, 23 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: 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.
 * 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

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)