User talk:Torga

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Torga! Thank you for your contributions. I am Iselilja and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Iselilja (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on GamerGate[edit]

Consensus currently stands that the events regard misogyny and sexism due to coverage in reliable sources. You do not get to remove the statement at the beginning of the article because you claim it adds to the bias when Wikipedia can only report on what was previously written and that's what is out there. Do not remove the statement from the lead paragraph, again, without a consensus for the change on the article's talk page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop downplaying the mention of misogyny. You don't have a consensus for it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erik Kain for Forbes said

So it was strange when /v/ rallied behind TFYC, raising $17,000 for the game jam partly in order to spite Quinn and partly in order to mess with everyone’s preconceptions of the forum.

Now stop removing the word "spite" from the fucking page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring notice[edit]

Your recent editing history at GamerGate shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Dreadstar ☥ 17:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

23 September 2014 edit warring at Gamergate controversy:

Please stop. Johnuniq (talk) 08:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then start using sources for the claims that are made. --Torga (talk) 08:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You crossed the bright-line threshold of WP:3RR, and if you edit war like that again you'll be blocked. The content you were removing from the WP:LEDE was sourced in the body, there is no requirement for sourced content to have duplicate inline references in the lede section. Please be more cautious in the future and be sure to discuss your edits on the talk page instead of reverting warring. Dreadstar ☥ 22:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gamergate controversy article discretionary sanctions notice[edit]

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.

Dreadstar ☥ 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about others[edit]

I removed your comment here [1]. Article talk pages are for discussing the editorial content of the article, if you want to discuss the behavior of other editors then take it to your user talk pages and follow WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Again, on article pages comment on content not contributors, per WP:TPNO, WP:CIV and WP:NPA. Dreadstar ☥ 00:30, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stop removing Tarc's comment from the talk page. WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE says nothing about removing this one comment where Tarc responds to someone's concerns and also says something regarding other users. Do not remove it, again, per WP:TPG as you are not an administrator like Dreadstar who has a say in user behavior.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you are incredibly wrong about my stance on the article. I've never edited the article to remove what the gater group believes are the issues at hand here. I am simply opposing the constant intrusions of the Wikipedia space by people who want to completely eliminate the discussion of harassment from the page because, as Erik Kain discusses in his piece you want the article to be void of bias, but so long as it features the one-sided and biased version of events that fits your own biases. A female figure in the industry was harassed and they focused on the fact she was a woman rather than a developer. People began to cry wolf on indie devs figuratively and literally being in bed with games journalists. The industry reacted. That's all covered on the page. Now stop it with the constant cries of "this article is biased, these journalists are biased, Tarc is a big meanie" and contribute to the project because it's clear that you are a single purpose account who is only here now to push the gater bias on this page because it doesn't show your side as you want it to.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder about consensus[edit]

Don't restore contentious content that's currently under discussion on the article talk page just because you disagree with the person who removed it last. Anything regarding the journoslist must be decided on first on the talk page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gamergate controversy. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Nip Gamergate in the bud. Thank you. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice[edit]

Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general 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. RGloucester — ☎ 02:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Gamergate controversy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks against other editors like this one [2] will result in sanctions. Please moderate your tone. Acroterion (talk) 03:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gamergate controversy. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
When you are reverted, go to the article's talk page and argue for the proposed change instead of restoring your preferred version, again, without any attempt at discussion. This is described at WP:BRD. So when I said "unexplained restoration" that did not mean "revert Ryulong and explain the revert in the edit summary". That new lead paragraph is the result of 48 hours of you not being involved in the article so don't arbitrarily pick a version you like better and is "neutral" in your opinion (when neutrality is not what you have been making it out to be) when so much has been done to improve it. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:04, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read my message to you above (and stop cutting out half of it and my signature). Stop edit warring. When you are reverted, go to the talk page to argue your case for inclusion and stop edit warring over it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do not change the lead paragraphs again without a consensus for these proposed changes on the talk page. This is your final warning.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Torga reported by User:Ryulong (Result: ). Thank you. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retreat while you can[edit]

For this, I'm sorry Torga, but I believe your comments at this point aren't helping anyone, and are actually harming yourself. I advise you to remove those comments and retreat to fight another day while you can, you've already been reported for edit warring. Edit some other articles that you're interested in. starship.paint ~ regal 06:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? --Torga (talk) 06:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That was good advice. ~~Glad~~ Smart that you took it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont care about me, but i hate to see it used as a point for pushing something trough. --Torga (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are banned, who will speak up for you? It would be best if you could adhere to the rules and become a valuable contributor, rather than be banned indefinitely. You've racked up several warnings already. If you want to contribute here you can't keep breaking the rules. Stop edit warring (repeatedly reverting other editors) and don't engage in personal attacks against other editors. People accuse you of being an SPA. Prove them wrong, edit some other article. starship.paint ~ regal 06:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Gamergate controversy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of topic ban[edit]

This is a formal notice of your topic ban.

The following sanction has been imposed on you:

Topic banned from Gamergate controversy-related pages for 90 days.

You have been sanctioned due to your continued edit warring and disruption after being warned multiple times, and resulting in a block.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator as authorised by community's decision at WP:GS/GG, and the procedure described by the general sanctions guidelines. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction at the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Dreadstar ☥ 00:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gamergate sanction[edit]

Sorry, but I have filed a complaint at WP:GS/GG/E. Tarc (talk) 13:05, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for 72 hours under the general sanctions provision for violating your topic ban. I acknowledge that you 'fessed up and took responsibility for your actions here, which is why it's only a three day block and not for a whole week. However, I expect that other administrators would not be so lenient if you break the topic ban again once your current block expires. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I've reported you for this as well.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:59, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for a period of indefinite for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Torga. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:25, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]