Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:13, 10 December 2014

Content removal

Its wasn't large scale removal it was removal of very bias unfounded information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarousedtuna (talk • contribs) 04:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@Anarousedtuna: Please refrain from edit warring and explain on the article talk page what is "unfounded" or "biased" about including the GamerGate article in Misplaced Pages's feminism portal. The controversy obviously involves issues related to feminism, as discussed in reliable sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop and think with your edits you are trying to paint gamer gate as a sexist issue when it is not. Suggestion revert you edit and state what is is really about. -thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarousedtuna (talk • contribs) 04:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the reliable sources and understand why the predominant point of view about GamerGate is that it's riven with misogyny and internet trolling. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

ya... no its about journalism people are trying to make it about feminism. You clearly have a very bias dog in the fight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarousedtuna (talk • contribs) 04:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm interested in ensuring the article adheres to core content policies and reflects the mainstream consensus view of the controversy. It's not my fault that some people with honest concerns about journalism hitched their wagon to a misogynistic trolling witch-hunt. I apologize if you're one who's truly concerned about the ethics issue, but your hashtag has been permanently poisoned by the relentlessly-sexist focus on a woman's sex life. Also, please sign your posts with four tildes, like this:~~~~. Thanks. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If you are then remove the feminism portal it create a hostile/bias resource page. This issue does inculde sexism on both sides but it should not be a focus of the point on the page. Poisoned? I have nothing against equal rights for every one regardless of whom they are but I can not stand to seem an agenda being so blatantly pushed on a page. I also take offense to being called sexist, your the one trying to force an agenda I'm trying to provide a neutral page. Anarousedtuna (talk • contribs) 05:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest a good dose of WP:DNFTT. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how this is related but I'm done with this. Episodes like this is why wiki's not considered reliable. comment added by Anarousedtuna (talk • contribs) 05:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:NorthBySouthBaranof et al. reported by User:MicBenSte .28Result: .29. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicBenSte (talk • contribs) 17:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You were involved in a request for amendment American politics (Kentucky Senate election)

That request has been archived here.

The arbitration committee has chosen to close this request, noting that per WP:NEWBLPBAN, this article is subject to DS. For the arbitration committee, --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I owe you a little apology for the last revert - I intended to review your removal, and somehow managed to revert it instead. Now, you would have noted that it was a mistake had you allowed me 5 more seconds to correct it before edit warring! ;-)

Diego (talk) 22:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

BTW, that's why you're supposed to contact the offending editor and try discussing the things out before filing an ANI. (What was that, less than 30 seconds or so? That may be a new record) :-P Diego (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:GamerGate". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Retartist (talk) 06:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate/Sommers edits

Please see the talk page for why I removed the response articles. If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. Willhesucceed (talk) 22:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gamergate controversy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tropes. 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) 09:21, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom clarification request:Sexology

The request for clarification you initiated or were involved with has been closed and archived without action here for the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 15:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Jules Bianchi

I've been on Misplaced Pages a long time, and I've never seen such lunacy from another editor as I've just seen from that guy on Bianchi's talk page. If he continues, I'll report him for deleting your comment (at least twice) and restoring vandalism to a BLP. Bretonbanquet (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Edits to the "Gamergate controversy" article

I think it would be best at this point if you either refrained from further edits to the Gamergate page or toned down on your frequency. You have made 61 of the last 500 edits to the article and are the second most frequent editor within that period. At this point I believe it would be best if less invested contributors took over. If you have any concerns about NPOV or SPAs, your argument will be strengthened by relegating such observations to the appropriate resolution channels and engaging the community in these issues. In this spirit, I will also refrain from making any further edits to the article and limit myself to suggestions on the talk page.--ArmyLine (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

there is no value in people who are "less invested" in Misplaced Pages's policies and representing the reliable sources having more editing of the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If every SPA devoted to introducing nonsense about living people into this article similarly agreed to not edit, I might consider this. But Titanium Dragon won't even agree to *not mention Zoe Quinn for a month*, so invested are they in depicting her negatively. So no. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Zone 5 Military Museum, Danang. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 16:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakebyte42 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Your video game journalism revert

Why did you revert the allegations of several other people other than Nathan Grayson saying they're not relevent people? These other people were also accused for harming journalistig integrity. --Artman40 (talk) 11:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Your sentence makes literally no sense, and this discussion belongs on the article's talk page. Please take your issues there. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 11:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

It makes sense but the fact that other 4 people who have received accusations were not mentioned in mainstream media for some reason is still notable. --Artman40 (talk) 12:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, no, it makes no sense, because "accused for harming journalistic integrity" is not a comprehensible phrase. What is "harming journalistic integrity," which reliable source made the accusations and is there any substantiation for any of the claims? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "GamerGate (controversy)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 21 October 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 05:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Do me a solid

I'm staying out of that hell hole. 5 edit conflicts in 2 minutes. Could you please replace the "ingrained" source with one of the suitable ones you mentioned? Always a pleasure Two kinds of pork_Bacon 05:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I would do so happily, but the article's full-prot for another... week, I think? Yeah, it's a debacle. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

AN3

Titanium Dragon etc—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yellow Sandals is rehashing the content dispute on AN now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 07:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning GamerGate (controversy), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:32, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Milo Yiannopoulos article

Hi, I was looking at the article on the person in question and it seems like someone simply copied the section from the Gamergate article with minor changes , and some of the sources I find questionable eg Techcrunch, Reason, and the claims that he experienced harassment. Can you take a look at it? TY --137.111.13.200 (talk) 08:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gamergate controversy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph. 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) 09:17, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Gamergate and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

GamerGate sanctions

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 Misplaced Pages, 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.

In case you were unaware.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Note on the removal of article tagging (Tropes vs. Women in video games)

Hello, I recently noticed that you removed the tag I put on the article Tropes vs. Women in Video Games (Misplaced Pages Article). I am kinda new to flagging articles that need improvement on Misplaced Pages, and I was wondering if I made a mistake in how I flagged it. What I wanted to accomplish was to have the article slightly cleaned up because some of the information in it, to me at least, appears to be opinionated and does not appear to be written from a neutral point of view. Is there a way I could have done this better?
] (talk) 19:56, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

When you tag an article, particularly one as contentious as that one, you need to open a discussion on the talk page expressing your specific issues with the article. Merely dropping a tag in the article and walking away is "drive-by tagging" and not considered good form or helpful, especially when it is a well-established article with significant edits such as that one.

That is, the tag doesn't tell us anything other than your very general opinion that there is a very general issue. For issues to be fairly discussed and addressed by a consensus decision, they need to be explained and discussed. Hope this helps. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:01, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for letting me know what I did wrong. I did some research and did find that it is in fact a very controversial article which in fact has been vandalized multiple times. I am not quite sure why I did not open up a discussion, but if I visit that article again and do decide for good that it appears to not be written from a neutral point of view, I will leave that tag and open up discussion.

Sorry for any inconvenience that I caused

] (talk) 20:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Gamergate controversy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, 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.

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.. Edit warring violates Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Gamergate, if continued, you risk general sanctions. Dreadstar ☥ 03:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dreadstar: I'm pretty sure that's only two reverts I've made in the last 24 hours and both on separate issues. I made a significant rewrite to address TDA's concerns about criminal connotations, by rewriting to exclude the word "bribe". I'm trying to avoid the classic revert war, and neither of my reverts have been untouched reverts — both have involved efforts to rewrite the content to achieve a consensus version. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:EW, "it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." Please also review WP:3RRNO for edit warring exemptions. Dreadstar ☥ 03:45, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dreadstar: Right, but I don't see this as an edit war... *yet* — if TDA reverts it back out and I reverted it back in, then I agree I'd be edit-warring. I made an effort to put forward a version that addresses TDA's concerns... if TDA isn't satisfied and takes it out again, I'll leave it be. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Also please note this: "The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period". Dreadstar ☥ 03:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

@Dreadstar: I made one legitimate effort at addressing the issue and if TDA wants to reject it, c'est la vie, I wasn't planning to engage in a stale revert-war over it. Thanks for the heads-up. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

If you're going to claim WP:BRD, then I suggest you and the other reverting editors claim it in the edit summary. Actually, on those articles - I wouldn't recommend even using BRD, the Gamergate General Sanctions are very strict. Dreadstar ☥ 03:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you know the source for this?

I'd like to see if you know the source for this is. The unorganized, leaderless movement has hitherto been unwilling or unable to distance itself from continued harassment. I'd rather ask you than go to the talk because it'll just be another needless section clogging up the page. Tutelary (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

There's already discussion of it on the talk page — see "Last paragraph of the lede." It's a concise paraphrase of a point that any number of sources have made about the fact that the movement's complete lack of anything resembling identifiable leadership or organization prevents it from doing anything meaningful to stop the harassment carried out under its name. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:32, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Tutelary (talk) 23:34, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

JournoList

It is rather remarkable that two accounts show up that only have edited years ago and they speak for mr. Editwarrior. Less remarkable is the revert by an IP. This is clear block evasion and reported as such. Unless you are quicker, I will throw in an sockpuppet investigation later today. The Banner talk 11:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, a SPI-case seems a dance on rather thin ice. I am not doing it after all. But it is strange what is happening. The Banner talk 20:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration case request(Gamergate) declined

An arbitration case request(Gamergate), involving you, has been archived, because the request was declined.

The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee,--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate talk page

Get in there now so we can discuss why you don't like my edit, lets reach a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeletos (talk • contribs) 04:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brianna Wu, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 8chan. 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) 16:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Wu article

I actually have looked over the sources several times. Only Kotaku calls 8chan a "pro-GamerGate message board", because it is a rather absurd characterization as 8chan predates GamerGate by nearly a year. The quote from Wu is only in the Kotaku article. None of the other sources mention the quote. The "for, among other things, making illogical claims and misogynistic threats" material does not appear to be backed by any actual source. Nowhere in the Boston Globe piece is anything of that nature stated. When unnecessary material that supports a specific POV can either not be backed by a source or can only be backed by a non-independent source, then it clearly does not belong in the article. You inserted these extraneous details to push your POV and nothing more.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:18, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

No, Kotaku is not the only site saying so and it's trivial to demonstrate otherwise. etc. etc. The fact that 8chan predates GamerGate does not prohibit us from describing it as a pro-GamerGate messageboard, which it obviously is and has become. If you would prefer NYMag's "unofficial headquarters of the online Gamergate movement" or "the site most responsible for the online Gamergate movement" or "the main staging ground for supporters of the Gamergate movement" wording, we can use that.

Kotaku is a perfectly usable source for this matter and you have no consensus for your ludicrous claim that it isn't.

The Boston Globe states that Wu "mocked members of a shadowy and threatening gaming movement called GamerGate, ridiculing them for, among other things, “fighting an apocalyptic future where women are 8 percent of programmers and not 3 percent.” If you'd prefer, rather than a paraphrase, I'll just use the direct quote. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

You seem to enjoy source-bombing and quote-bombing to push your POV, no matter how extraneous the material. Unsurprisingly, the only two sources, both of questionable reliability, that you cite above calling 8chan "pro-GamerGate" cited Kotaku. Reality is, stating it was in a GamerGate-related discussion suffices. Nothing you added about 8chan supposedly being pro-GamerGate, nor the quote of Wu's opinion on culpability, actually adds information of value. It also all comes from Kotaku, who undeniably have a horse in this race, more than any outlet. You and other POV-pushers refusing to understand that a controversy primarily concerning a specific media outlet means that media outlet should not be regarded as a third-party source on the matter is irrelevant. WP:RS is clear that third-party sources are required. If it is not a third-party source then it is basically a primary source and primary sources should not be used for contentious material. Lastly, your surmising of The Boston Globe is one more thing colored by your desire to push your POV. Providing a quote from one of the satirical image macros is not the same as quoting GamerGate supporters, which should be obvious. It also makes no mention of them being mocked "for making misogynistic threats", which still does not resolve the problem of you wording the material so as to present the "illogical statements and misogynistic threats" claim as fact when it is opinion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:53, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

All of it demonstrably adds information of value. Noting that 8chan is pro-GamerGate establishes the connection between the site, the harassment and the movement. The statement It was a paraphrase of "threatening movement" based upon that and the umpteen squillion other sources which discuss that aspect of the movement; but you knew that already, didn't you.

As for "POV-pusher," well, the pot would certainly know what color the kettle is. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:05, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Except, there is no indication given in the sources that the image macro was mocking them for that, nor do the sources generally treat it as fact that somehow these threats are all from GamerGate supporters. You can cry POV-pusher all you like, but I find people to be regularly torn between whether my edits are favorable or unfavorable to a given side. Many on both sides have considered my work on the content to be neutral. Of course, it can be very hard for a POV-pusher to recognize neutrality, so it is not surprising that you mistake my editing for POV-pushing rather than as an attempt to prevent you from making non-neutral edits.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I'm sure a ton of people find you to be making neutral edits on this subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Did not mean that

On GamerGate page, the most recent edit. I just remember Red had inserted all of that 'some' before supporters so I searched for that and changed it accordingly--This was ignorance not malice. I have no intention of deliberately making things more eschewed than they really are. Apologies for such. ^^ Tutelary (talk) 00:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured it was just a find-and-replace issue, just wanted to be sure. There's a lot of things I disagree with GG about but I'm pretty sure that false-flag crowd is a discredited fringe even within GG, which is to their credit that they've largely rejected that nonsense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#GamerGate and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Were we reading the same thread?

They were searching for misconduct on Misplaced Pages and weren't trying to dox anyone. The Patreon thing was posted by a single user and was just into the fray--around 500 other people's posts. Sure, maybe they were a bit hysterical and everything like it, posting old screenshots taken out of context (the one where Ryulong and you mentioned to let him 'hang himself' a guise to WP:ROPE) but trying to say that they're investigating anyone or doxxing anyone involved in the ArbCom Case is a bit disingenuous to what they were actually doing; trying to help Pro GG on the ArbCom case with their numbers by providing links and what not. Or does one person represent the entire group? Tutelary (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, because "SCOUR TWITTER, TUMBLR, WORDPRESS, ANYTHING FOR RYULONG, TARAINDC, THEREDPENOFDOOM, OR NORTHBYHEADUPASS" is good-faith discussion of Misplaced Pages policy issues, right? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:58, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

on Digra

Just fyi, I was in the process of adding more on digra, and used a different quote from mia that I think was a bit more relevant/direct but paraphrased the other one you added. Not trying to step on toes, just working to same end on that section. --MASEM (t) 00:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you so much for keeping the "Gamergate controversy" article in line with reality. Very appreciated. Charginghawk (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Stop it.

Stop edit warring on Arbcom pages. If you believe this information needs to be seen, send it by email. Worm(talk) 09:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: Yes, I stopped quite awhile ago — once I realized that DHeyward was hell-bent on revert-warring it out, I dropped the stick and let it go. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:24, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Video game journalism

When removing the recent vandalism from this article, your change may have been removed as well:

"However, Grayson never reviewed Depression Quest and had not written anything about Quinn after beginning the relationship"

Dreadstar ☥ 02:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate request

Please note the instruction for your statement in the Gamergate request for a case:

Without exception, statements (including responses to other statements) must be shorter than 500 words.

Your statement is at 1026 words, so is well over the limit. Please recall that this statement is not intended to be a full exposition of all evidence, which occurs at the next step, but simply a statement requesting a case. Please trim back your statement. For the arbitration committee--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright checks when performing AfC reviews

Hello NorthBySouthBaranof. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.

The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.

If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)

If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Misplaced Pages to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.

Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.

I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).

       Sent via--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Can Haz Cheezburger

↢ RemorA ↣ haz givn u Cheezburgr! Cheezburgrs promot WikiLovez and hoapfuly thiz one haz made yore day bettr. Spreadd teh WikiLovez by givin sumone else Cheezburgr, whethr it be sumeone youz hav had disagreementz with in teh past or a gud frend. Hapy munchins!

Thanks for the resolution for POV Issues within Subpage. It was far more elegant and fair than what I had thought of.

Also, thank you for being one of the reasonable voices in the GG article. I know this wikiluvz is late, but hope you'll still accept it :).

Spredd teh goudnesz of Cheezburgerz to all lolcat buddiez by addin {{subst:Cheezburgr}} to their talk paj with friendly messuj to all.

A classic example of what's wrong with BLP

I noted your edit summary here. I should think that if the source were not RS, the Guardian would not be be risking its reputation by using it in a report. Neither would the Washington Post be referring to this "incident report published by the Free Thought Project". Do you seriously believe the police report scans were faked? If you are going to believe this is a fraud, what DO you believe? I think RS policy is being misused if people are not citing it with a good faith belief that the material at issue is truly of questionable factual accuracy.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Why not, then, just use the reliable sources that picked it up? I am opposed to using any questionable sources to support negative allegations or assertions about living people. This goes as much for this source which presents negative claims about Darren Wilson as it does for the numerous fringe sources which present negative claims about Michael Brown. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Because the particular facts indicate that it's already RS in this particular case (no matter how one might generalize), especially if other RS are treating it as RS, and we should be transparent to the reader about where material originates. Both the Guardian and the Washington Post are careful to indicate to readers where they got this from. We can and should take similar care. For my part, I don't support the laundering sources through other sources doctrine which instead of seeing the additional coverage as adding incrementally to the argument for inclusion, sees it as effectively turning water into wine. The story is ultimately just as dubious as the original source if there is only one source. If laundering actually works, then we as Wikipedians ought to be trying to develop the same sorts of reliability assessment skills the launderers have so we can make the same sort of skilled assessment should a launderer not be immediately available. Show me someone who cites a primary source for whom it's usually just a matter of time until secondary sources cite in turn and I'd call that someone a presumptively astute judge of both reliability and notability. Instead of developing and respecting those skills I see editors not bothering to consider the plausibility of what's claimed and instead making blanket judgments about what is or is not RS without concern for whether the judgment is shown to be sound over time or not. I for one, am opposed to using questionable sources PERIOD when what makes the source questionable is hidden from the reader. Letting questionable sourcing go if it flatters someone is a double violation of both RS and NPOV in my books. I note that you contradicted yourself by saying you are opposed to "...assertions about living people" and then saying "this goes as much for" someone who is dead. If it TRULY "goes as much" for the dead guy as for the guy who shot him then we wouldn't have a BLP policy and I wouldn't be complaining!~--Brian Dell (talk) 23:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Brewing edit war on Shirtstorm

I'm not going to get sucked into an edit war with you. I've made a section on the talk page specifically for discussing who initiated the controversy. Listing those two people is also well-sourced and verifiable, to use the terms from your edit summary. Come discuss why you think you think "commentators" is right on the talk page. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, not everything a writer for The Washington Post writes is in The Washington Post. Did you read my edit summary explaining why I removed the quote? Come discuss on the article talk page. 70.133.154.32 (talk) 06:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Apology

I'm sorry for lashing out at you the other day. It was a huge mistake of me to do that and I sincerely apologize. I ask forgiveness from you. --DSA510 Pls No H8 02:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate opened

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm 22:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

FactualError in your Arbcom Report

Scroll up to "A Kitten for you" on your talk page. Diego accidentally pressed the revert button. I'm to only one to blame there not him.Bosstopher (talk) 07:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Anita Talk Page

Please do not edit my comment again. Looking at your history I see you have been obsessed with anti-gamergate and other related pages. Your unwarranted edit of my comment discussing well known facts surrounding Anita's career is not only unethical in the sense of trying to cover up information but it's also harassing to me personally. I would ask that you please leave me, and my comments, alone in the future. Thank you. Xander756 (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

@Xander756: That's not going to happen. Removing material which violates, or probably violates, the biographies of living persons policy is expressly provided for by policy, and I suggest you familiarize yourself with that policy. Such removals are not, in any sense of the word, "harassment." Rather, violations of the policy generally lead to rather speedy blocks, and that doesn't need to happen to you if you can engage in sensible discussion on the talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Don't feel like making a new thread. I think this fits into your evidence rather than mine atm.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Ha, I find the both of you in one section--very convenient. Ryūlóng, NorthBySouthbaranof, y'all's zeal and incisive commentary is of course greatly appreciated but at some point a flood of contributions becomes counterproductive. I can't ask you all to stop chatting and tweeting and blogging and whatnot (as Gamaliel said elsewhere, how do you all find the time? who does the dishes in your house?), but if you both could refrain from responding to every single frigging comment on the ArbCom pages, that would be GREAT. You don't have to counter every single pro-GamerGate comment or whatever--really, the world is not going to end if you refrain every now and then. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh Lord, believe me, I have absolutely no interest in chatting or tweeting or blogging about this debacle. I don't even have a Reddit account and I'm frankly rather bemused at the whole idea of it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

  I'm only responding to the ones that I think are bunk or intentionally out of context.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 02:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Length of Arbcom Evidence

The standard limits ArbCom evidence submissions are 1000 words. I count your evidence submission currently at 1776 words (not including Rebuttal). Just thought you might want to know so you can trim it down a bit (or you can request more room). --Obsidi (talk) 06:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Evidence limits

Your evidence section is well over the limit of 1000 words. I am still checking to see whether the limit is inclusive of responses to others, but even if those are excepted, you are over 1300 words. You either need explicit permission from one of the drafting arbs, or you need to trim your evidence. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 22:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I just learned that the drafting arbs are thinking through what to do about evidence limits. One possibility is an increase, so feel free to hold off making a change at this time. I hope to have more advice soon.For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 22:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, although frankly as a party in this, I hope they don't expand it too significantly. 1,500 would be plenty and anything more just goes far into the realm of overkill. Reasonable limits are appreciated. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate evidence limits

The arbs are leaning toward a doubling of the usual limits on evidence for this specific case. I am still waiting for final sign-off, but it seems likely that most participants will not need to trim evidence. Three relevant points:

• Given the substantial increase in limits, the usual acceptance if counts go a bit over will not be granted. Treat the limits as absolute.
• The limits apply to both direct evidence and rebuttal to others.
• Despite the increase, it is highly desirable to be as succinct as possible. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 17:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Question about Gamergate talk page

With Willhesucceed's latest "source" now on the talk page, I'm thinking it might be a good time to combine that with Carrite's suggested "source" and Avono's suggested "source" and request a finding from ArbCom in the ongoing case that says editors who link sources that contain BLP violating material can be sanctioned. However I've never been party to an ArbCom case before and I'm not sure if it really belongs there or not. I would say it goes under the general sanctions for the Gamergate page, except that instead of it being a single user being disruptive, it's a pattern of disruptive behavior from several editors all doing the same inappropriate thing, so I'm not sure how to phrase a request there either. Can you point me in the right direction to figure out where and how to properly raise this issue? ReynTime (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

'The Effects of the Sexualization of Female Video Game Characters on Gender Stereotyping and Female Self-Concept'

hi NBSB,

You say "You need to read the study, because it's cited in there.". The deletion was the result of reading the study and finding no in it talking about the text in there.

But perhaps I overlooked it. Could you be so kind as to show me where it says in the study?

GameLegend (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@GameLegend: Page 2 of the document, page 809 of the journal. In fact, some of it is a direct quote without the quote marks (hence, copyvio) and I'll take a crack at a paraphrase. The vast majority of female characters have been found to be non-playable, meaning that they cannot be played by the gamer - thus underscoring their secondary and exiguous status. When playable female characters do appear in video games, they are typically overtly sexualized and portrayed wearing promiscuous dress and engaging in seductive acts. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:16, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Ah k. Thanks.

Though that quote is attributed to another study, so I'd suggest using the original study that it comes from as reference.

Miller, M. K., & Summers, A. (2007). Gender differences in video game characters’ roles, appearances, and attire as portrayed in video game magazines. Sex Roles, 57, 733–742.

GameLegend (talk) 08:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, whoever originally inserted it didn't quite take the sourcing all the way that they could. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Miller-Summers 2007 in turn linked to Ivory 2006, which as it turns out have used online reviews as proxies, rather than looking at the video games (and referred only to top-rated games, not all video games); I've updated the article accordingly. The sentence "the vast majority of female characters have been found to be non-playable" was dubious to begin with; it's best to find the original paper and see what it says and how it conducted the study. Quotes by people citing the original paper tend to be opinions of the writer and not as reliable as the real thing. Id' say that "taking the sourcing all the way that they could" should be required when using academic papers as references. Diego (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	But Ethics! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 08:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate arbitration case: evidence and workshop

In the interests of making this case more easily manageable, it is likely that we will prune the parties list to limit it to those against whom evidence has been submitted. Therefore, if anyone has anything to add, now is the time to do so.

See the list of parties not included in the evidence as of 8 Dec 14.

Please note that the purpose of the /Evidence page is to provide narrative, context and all the diffs. As diffs can usually be interpreted in various ways, to avoid ambiguity, they should be appended to the allegation that's being made. If the material is private and the detail has been emailed to ArbCom, add instead of diffs.

The /Workshop page builds on evidence. FOFs about individual editors should contain a summary of the allegation made in /Evidence, and diffs to illustrate the allegation. Supplying diffs makes it easier for the subject of the FOF to respond and much easier for arbitrators to see whether your FOF has substance.

No allegations about other editors should be made either in /Evdence or in the /Workshop without supporting diffs. Doing so may expose you to findings of making personal attacks and casting aspersions.

Also, please note that the evidence lengths have been increased from about 1000 words and about 100 diffs for parties and about 500 words and about diffs for non-parties to a maximum of 2000 words and 200 diffs for parties and 1000 words and 100 diffs for non-parties. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC) Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk)

libellous

When a newspaper believes they have published false information they print a retraction that notes their error. There is a reason for that: Public figures, like Quinn, have to prove malice. Retractions eliminate malice. The Amherst writer repeated Quinns ex-boyfriends post as fact without attribution. There are plenty of sources that simply say alleged and then also go on to prove right/wrong. The choice Amherst had was republish with attribution or remove. Attribution exists for everything you called false (ex-BF and TFYC make the same claims as agrieved parties). The attributions are too weak to include in Misplaced Pages but Misplaced Pages's standards are no where close to libel standards. Think about it: (Redacted) yet no lawsuits for libel/defamation. Considering I can find the article in question, if she had a case a lawyer would file it if only to get that retraction. The lack of a retraction and the lack of a lawsuit flies in the face of "clearly actionable." --DHeyward (talk) 09:37, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

No, we don't know that Quinn has done any such thing regarding YouTube. Your evidence to support that claim is what, exactly?

Claiming that "if the article had said something different than it actually said, it wouldn't be libel" is not a defense to anything. We can only hypothesize as to what Quinn may or may not know about the article's existence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Nor can we hypothesize about the reason they took it down. Claims that a living person (William Harvey) committed a crime (defamatory libel) is a BLP violation. Stop saying it was libel and defamation when you have no idea. True and not true is fine and not the same thing. Forbes article comments on the takedown requests. --DHeyward (talk) 14:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Libel is not a criminal offense in the United States, and it is not a BLP violation to reasonably suggest that a piece of writing may be libelous. You are the only person who has mentioned any names here.

The Forbes source does not support your factual claim, being only an unproven allegation of a single instance - a far cry from your absurd statement. I have accordingly redacted it. Have a nice day. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)