User talk:TyTyMang

Hello! TyTyMang (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Five Pillars
Tyler,

You raise some interesting ideas in your talk page post, but essentially what you're asking is something Wikipedia fundamentally can't do. Our articles, by foundational policy, are based on information that is verifiable by dint of being published in reliable sources. If all the reliable sources are biased, as you contend, then Wikipedia's articles will necessarily share that bias.

However, I'd suggest that you seriously think about what you are claiming — that effectively every major mainstream media outlet has some sort of inherent "bias" against your position. Do you understand that this appears to outside observers as a grossly-overbroad and evidence-free conspiracy theory? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. What evidence, much less proof, do you have to support this contention of yours? Moreover, why do you think such a broad-based coalition of people would all come to the same conclusion? I'd encourage you to do some soul-searching about what it is you really believe and what you think others really believe. What do you think Gamergate stands for, and what do other people think Gamergate stands for?

Cheers. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The thing is, there is plenty of evidence such as the Wikipedia article itself being part of the evidence that leads me to that conclusion. Though most notably the "End of Gamers" article collusion along with the mailing list. WP only considers a very narrow range of articles as evidence. However, as a not-Wikipedia human person, my acceptable range of evidence is much broader.


 * Also, not every media outlet is antiGG. But of the ones who are considered "reliable" that have spoken out on the subject, they have all been anti-GG. But my claim says nothing about the ones who have not spoken on the subject. Though to be honest, having lacked much consideration for these unspoken entities, I am not sure of how many they number in currently.


 * In any case, I know what my GG stands for. And it is more than just about ethics in gaming journalism at this point. And from the things I've seen from some of the more predominant members of the opposition I'm more convinced than ever that I've chosen correctly.... Besides, due to the antiGG flawed-logic position of "Not with me = Against me", I'm also not able to openly take a neutral position on the matter anyways... TyTyMang (talk) 09:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not built on "evidence" that you may have found. It is built upon what has been found by experts and made available through reliably published sources. If you think those policies need to be changed to give gamergate its fair shake, then you will need to change the policies themselves. (good luck with that) (you may wish also to read WP:FRINGE as Wikipedia's policies have often been critiqued from that angle by supporters of groups and issues that find themselves in the same position as gamergaters.) --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

DarknessSavior
I know editing others' talk page comments is generally considered rude, but I took the liberty of fixing the link you attempted to the AN request (I assume it was just a copy/paste fail, but you actually linked to the editing form for the same section on DS' talk page). 76.69.75.41 (talk) 10:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. I very much appreciate it! TyTyMang (talk) 10:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

No thanks
We have more than enough drama whores mongers who have substantive contributions to the encyclopaedia, we really don't need new ones who don't. I have blocked this account indefinitely. Feel free to request unblocking, which I will gladly support on the proviso that you undertake to avoid all articles related to gamergate (broadly construed), sexual identity and gender politics (broadly construed), editors and media involved in the aforementioned, including on Wikipedia noticeboards. In other words: contribute to the encyclopaedia, or get lost.

Sorry to be brutal, but seriously, we have had enough. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I would at least like to know what behavior of mine you find indicative of WP:NOTHERE. I believe I'm entitled to at least this much per WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. Calling me a "drama whore" isn't very "Clear or Specific" much less very civil. And what justification you have for me to avoid such articles (and editors?) as you have noted.TyTyMang (talk) 01:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * fewer than 50 total edits and right at th coal face of one of our longest running and most toxic disputes. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. If you want to edit in non-controversial areas I'm happy to unblock you, but this project simply does not need more people whose only "contribution" is to perpetuate drama. I don't think that is unreasonable. I apologise for using a term of art that is inappropriate, and have corrected it. Guy (Help!) 07:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's most definitely unreasonable; contributing in a civil manner to a consensus-forming discussion is not "perpetuating drama." NE Ent 10:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

TyTyMang: you can use unblock to ask another administrator to review your block. See Template:Unblock/doc for instructions. (Admins: please see User_talk:JzG). NE Ent 10:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * maybe compromise with a unblock & page ban to Gamergate controversy like was done to Rhoark. Or can that only be done by the arbs now? Avono (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * They've done nothing to warrant a topic ban, much less an indefinite block. TyTyMang's crime appears to be criticising the heavy-handed blocks doled out by certain admins, and it results in a heavy-handed block. &mdash;Xezbeth (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thats way I am trying to find a solution to this mess. At the current state this user does not deserve a indef. However there must have been something that caused JzG to warrant this block therefore a mitigating sanction might be a compromise as it is just a matter of time before this user will stumble over another problem without having experience in controversial topic areas. Avono (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The solution is for JzG to explain how the block is per policy, or to revert it. Lacking that, another admin should unblock TyTyMang. "If they were blocked they must be guilty of something" is fallacious logic. NE Ent 11:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The solution is to unblock the victim who was merely being critical of mods who have been breaking their own rules, and then block and unmod those mods such as Guy for uncivilized behavior.

Note: JzG (Guy) has stated [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJzG&diff=645298112&oldid=645277105 "I give any uninvolved admin carte blanche to unblock... "]. Please read diff for full context. NE Ent 12:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * This account has fewer than 50 edits, and pretty much all of them are engaging in Gamergate drama. By long-standing consensus those who have been drawn to Wikipedia by outside activism in order to fight the cause for someone else are treated as sockpuppets. I happen to think that TyTyMang is very likely to be a nice person. If so, they are very welcome to edit other content if they'd like. We do not need single-purpose accounts whose purpose is Gamergate (or indeed any other controversial topic). TyTyMang can email me to discuss privately, or ask another admin to review, per the hatnote on my Talk page I do not oppose independent admins unblocking. It is my strong personal view that the number of single purpose accounts related to Gamergate is a large part of the problem. I think the article(s) need long-time Wikipedians with wide experience, not people who have come here to Right Great Wrongs. I think it is unfortunate that we have been less robust up to now. TyTyMan, as I say, you are welcome to appeal, but I strongly suggest that the core of that appeal be your plans to edit in less controversial areas. I completely support that. I do not think you are a bad person, I think you are caught up in something that is long past its sell-by date. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't Appeal, Take Guy straight to ani for admin abuse 82.39.42.100 (talk) 13:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, Guy has abused his power and should face sanctions, possibly a removal of admin powers. Calling someone a sexist slur and then banning them for little to no reason is absolutely inexcusable. 70.109.186.170 (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I am currently trying to avoid Gamergate-related discussion, but I'll provide my 2c since I was pinged. TyTy, whom I have not interacted with, has mostly been posting along two themes: that blocking/banning should be supported by policy, and discussing how to correctly apply WP:V. If "long-time Wikipedians with wide experience" were performing their roles properly, it would not be necessary to say these things. Being single-purpose is not an actionable offense, and it is particularly egregious to try to use blocking to extort a promise to avoid a topic area when there has been no disruptive editing. Rhoark (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

As I'm unsure if "email disabled" in block means that you can't contact the arbs for appeal, I've gone and asked for a review of your block at WP:AN. Hopefully sensibility will prevail. // coldacid (talk&#124;contrib) 19:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * On that note, I'm not sure email is by default disabled in blocks (I could be wrong). It seems like, if disabled by default, it shouldn't be, specifically so the blocked user can email role accounts like ArbCom, BASC, etc. if they deem necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.91.13.25 (talk) 19:46, 2 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey guys, thanks for the concern and support. The reason I haven't requested an unblock yet is because I was waiting to see what specific actions Guy has blocked me for. If I don't know what actions I made in error, then I cannot profess to fix my behavior in the future. But by the rhetoric used by Guy, it would appear that he believes I should already topic banned from "articles related to gamergate (broadly construed), sexual identity and gender politics (broadly construed), editors and media involved in the aforementioned, including on Wikipedia noticeboards" and his actions were taken preemptively of that result. The only actions I have been accused of are perceptions of my motives, and the motives of those engaged in said controversial topics by the blocking admin. For that reason and the fact that is has been brought to AN for review I'll hold off for now.


 * I have unblocked this account. While I understand and appreciate Jzg's underlying reasoning we don't really do preemtive blocks and there is a formalized process for enforcing the discretionary sanctions that arbcom has placed on gemergate and related subjects. So you should note that any user may at any time decide to ask for sanctions at arbitration enforcement if your contributions are perceived as unhelpful in that area. Not saying they are, just making sure you are aware that this is a procedural unblock, not an endorsement of your past edits. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement
You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement'' arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement'' arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction
This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted: